Date: May 14, 2026 l Reporter: Jan Porch
Drama unfolded at the Federal High Court in Abuja on Thursday after a disagreement among members of the defence team representing popular activist and blogger Justice Chidiebere, widely known as “Justice Crack,” led to the withdrawal of his bail application.
The disagreement reportedly erupted during proceedings when two lawyers — Olufemi Balogun and Marshall Abubakar — simultaneously announced appearances for the defendant, creating confusion over who should lead the defence in court.
According to reports, Marshall Abubakar insisted he was the counsel already on record from the previous court sitting, while Balogun maintained that he had been instructed by the defendant’s family to lead the legal team because of his seniority at the Bar.
Presiding judge, Justice Joyce Abdulmalik, reportedly asked the defendant to identify the lawyer leading his defence, after which Justice Crack pointed to Balogun. Shortly afterward, Abubakar announced his withdrawal from the matter and also withdrew the bail application he had earlier filed on behalf of the activist.
The development forced the court to adjourn the matter until May 18, 2026, for the hearing of a fresh bail application expected to be filed by the new defence team.
Speaking after the proceedings, Balogun accused Abubakar of frustrating the bail process after failing to secure leadership of the defence team. He argued that disagreements among lawyers should not interfere with the defendant’s right to seek liberty before the court.
Abubakar, however, defended his decision, stating that he had been handling the matter from the beginning and had already taken several steps to secure Justice Crack’s release, including meetings with officials at the Federal Ministry of Justice. He claimed another lawyer appeared in court without prior consultation, leading to what he described as a “conflict of interest.
Justice Crack is currently facing cybercrime-related charges linked to allegations that he circulated false information on social media concerning feeding conditions within the Nigerian Army. Prosecutors accused him of using his platform to incite public dissatisfaction and spread information capable of causing unrest.
The Attorney General of the Federation’s office has reportedly taken over the prosecution of the case from the Department of State Services (DSS), signaling heightened federal interest in the matter.
The case has continued to generate widespread reactions online, with supporters of the activist describing the prosecution as an attempt to suppress dissent, while others argue that the government is acting within the provisions of Nigeria’s cybercrime laws.