A recent incident at the Federal High Court in Abuja has sparked widespread condemnation and raised significant concerns about judicial conduct and democratic integrity in Nigeria. The controversy centers on Justice Mohammed Umar, who reportedly ordered Mr. Marshall Abubakar, lead defense counsel for human rights activist Omoyele Sowore, to kneel in open court during proceedings. This directive was met with staunch refusal by Abubakar, who asserted that such a punishment is unknown to Nigerian law.

The incident occurred during the ongoing trial of Omoyele Sowore, who is being prosecuted by the Department of State Services (DSS) for allegedly describing President Bola Ahmed Tinubu as a criminal. Tensions escalated when Sowore's legal team requested a longer adjournment after the prosecution claimed to have closed its case, a request that visibly irritated the judge. During the proceedings, Sowore declared his intention to continue mobilizing opposition against President Tinubu ahead of the 2027 general election. When lead prosecutor Adeolu Kehinde, SAN, attempted to interrupt, Marshall Abubakar rose to deliver an emotional intervention, arguing for the importance of Sowore's progressive ideas for Nigeria's future and suggesting government efforts to silence him. Justice Umar, who had previously indicated he did not want further arguments from Abubakar, subsequently lost his temper and commanded the lawyer to kneel as punishment for what he deemed contempt of court. Abubakar, however, firmly refused, stating in a persistent tone that kneeling before a judge lacks any basis in Nigerian law. The refusal prompted concern among other lawyers in the courtroom, who appealed to the judge for calm. The proceedings were eventually halted, and the matter was adjourned to April 13, 2026, despite objections from Sowore's legal team regarding the inconvenient date.

The Take-It-Back Movement vehemently condemned the judge's actions, characterizing them as a "gross abuse of judicial authority" and a "dangerous assault on the tenets of democracy," likening it to "executive rascality." In a statement issued by its National Coordinator, Sanyaolu Juwon, the movement asserted that no Nigerian law grants a judge the power to subject anyone to such "degrading and medieval punishment." The group further argued that this incident is indicative of a broader "authoritarian drift" under the current administration, where state institutions are allegedly being weaponized to intimidate and silence opposition. The movement criticized the Tinubu-led government for misplacing its priorities, focusing on harassing critics like Sowore while the nation grapples with alarming levels of insecurity, including frequent attacks, killings, and bombings. The Take-It-Back Movement warned that Nigeria's democracy is at risk when judges act with impunity and security agencies target activists instead of criminals, pledging "all legitimate means," including mass protests, to demand an end to the suppression of citizens.

The Nigerian Bar Association (NBA) also weighed in on the development, expressing serious concern over the reports. In a statement signed by its president, Afam Osigwe, SAN, the NBA unequivocally stated, "NO JUDGE HAS THE POWER TO ORDER A LAWYER TO KNEEL IN COURT." The association underscored that while judges possess the authority to maintain order and discipline, such powers must be exercised strictly within the bounds of the law and established judicial standards, reminding that "the courtroom is a temple of justice, governed by law, procedure and decorum." The NBA acknowledged the courts' power to punish for contempt but emphasized that such processes must follow recognized legal procedures to ensure fairness and respect for human dignity. While condemning the act of ordering a lawyer to kneel as inconsistent with judicial conduct standards, the NBA also called for "calm and restraint on all sides" and encouraged addressing grievances through appropriate institutional channels, a stance that drew criticism.

Omoyele Sowore, the activist at the center of the trial, strongly criticized the NBA's response. He rejected the call for "calm and restraint," arguing that it undermined the severity of the judge's actions and failed to adequately protect the integrity of Nigeria's legal system. Sowore, a vocal critic of judicial abuses, emphasized that the rule of law should not be reduced to such calls in the face of what he termed "blatant disrespect for legal norms." The NBA has previously faced criticism for perceived timidity in addressing instances of judicial misconduct, and Sowore's remarks highlighted this ongoing concern.

The incident involving Justice Umar, Marshall Abubakar, and Omoyele Sowore has thus become a focal point for broader discussions on judicial ethics, the independence of the judiciary, and the state of civil liberties in Nigeria under the current political climate, with various stakeholders calling for adherence to legal principles and the protection of democratic values.