Lawyers’ Dispute Delays Justice Crack’s Bail Hearing Until May 18

Bar. Marshall Abubakar withdraws official bail application for Justice Crack

The bail hearing of activist Justice Crack was on Thursday postponed at the Federal High Court in Abuja after members of his legal team disagreed over who should take the lead in defending him.

The disagreement resulted in the withdrawal of an earlier bail application filed on behalf of the activist, forcing the court to adjourn proceedings until Monday, May 18, when a fresh application is expected to be heard.

Speaking to journalists after the court session, one of the lawyers representing the activist, Femi Balogun, accused fellow counsel Marshall Abubakar of frustrating the bail process after he was prevented from leading the defence.

Balogun explained that the activist’s family had instructed him to handle the matter because of his seniority at the Bar.

According to him, Abubakar — who initially filed the bail application — insisted on taking charge of the proceedings despite the presence of more senior lawyers on the case.

He said:

“Today the matter was supposed to be for the hearing of the bail application. However, I was directed by the family to lead in respect of the matter for today.

“I was with Marshall at the last court sitting, but Marshall is my junior. I’m a senior at the bar. There were some other senior counsels at the last time, but he insisted on leading everyone despite the fact that in law, there’s seniority at the bar.”

Balogun further alleged that Abubakar decided to withdraw the bail application after he was denied the opportunity to lead the case.

“But today, I insisted that I have to lead based on the fact that the family has directed me to lead. But Marshall, in his vindictive way, applied to strike out the bail application on the basis that he’s not leading, which is unfair,” he said.

He argued that internal disagreements among lawyers should not interfere with the defendant’s right to seek bail.

“Ordinarily, if he’s doing this for justice, for the interest of justice, I don’t see a reason, even if you are not the counsel leading, why you should withdraw the bail application you have filed for the person to enjoy his liberty,” Balogun added.

However, Abubakar presented a different version of events, insisting that he only acted in line with the court’s directive after another lawyer unexpectedly appeared and announced representation for the activist.

He maintained that he had been handling the matter from the beginning and had personally initiated moves aimed at securing Justice Crack’s release.

According to Abubakar, he had written to the Attorney-General of the Federation requesting the discontinuation of the case. He also disclosed that he met with activist Omoyele Sowore, officials of the Federal Ministry of Justice, and the Director of Public Prosecutions of the Federation regarding the matter.

“I was the one who wrote to the Minister of Justice to discontinue this matter. I, alongside Mr Omoyele Sowore and some comrades, met with the Minister of Justice, the DPPF and the Permanent Secretary of the Ministry of Justice to see that we get Justice released,” he stated.

Abubakar said the disagreement started after another lawyer appeared in court without notifying him beforehand.

“But unfortunately, in court today, another lawyer appeared in court and said that he had the instructions of some persons to lead or represent Justice Crack,” he said.

He argued that legal ethics required the incoming counsel to first inform him before taking over the case.

“If there’s another lawyer in a matter, and I intend to proceed with the prosecution of that matter, the duty is on me to approach that lawyer and say I have the instructions of so and so person to prosecute this matter,” he said.

Abubakar also revealed that he accepted the case free of charge after being contacted by the activist’s wife.

“It was the wife of Justice Crack that reached out to me to represent her husband. It was on that basis that I took up this matter pro bono. I have never taken a kobo from anybody in respect of this matter,” he stated.

According to him, the judge acknowledged that he led proceedings during the previous sitting before giving him the option to withdraw his appearance.

“The judge said, ‘Marshall, you have a choice, are you going to withdraw your appearance?’ And I said, ‘My Lord, in view of what has transpired, I respectfully withdraw my appearance.’

“Once you withdraw appearance in a matter, the consequential orders must be made, which includes that every process we’ve filed in that matter goes with it. Once you withdraw, the application goes,” he said.

Balogun, however, maintained that following the withdrawal request, the court had no option but to strike out the application and adjourn the case until May 18 for a fresh bail hearing.

He also disclosed that the Director of Public Prosecutions, Rotimi Oyedepo, SAN, had officially taken over the prosecution from the Department of State Services.

Justice Crack was earlier remanded in prison custody over a viral video in which he allegedly criticised feeding arrangements within the Nigerian Army.

He was arraigned on charges linked to alleged cyber-related offences.

One of the charges against him reads:

“That you, CHIDIEBERE JUSTICE MARK, adult, male, of Plot 88 Sabon-Lugbe, Abuja, on or about the 28th day of April, 2026, in Abuja, within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, did circulate information to the public through your social media handle @JusticeCrack, regarding alleged inadequate feeding of Nigerian Army personnel, which you know the said information to be false but posted it for the purpose of causing annoyance, ill will, and hatred, especially among the citizens who hold divergent views and thereby committed an offence contrary to and punishable under Section 24(1) (b) of the Cybercrimes (Prohibition, Prevention, etc) Act, 2015, as amended.”

The case has continued to generate reactions across social media and civil society circles, with supporters describing the prosecution as an attempt to silence criticism, while authorities insist the charges are consistent with existing laws governing online publications.