The Federal High Court in Abuja has fixed Jan. 6, 2025, for ruling on a bail application filed by Olamide Thomas, who allegedly threatened Seyi Tinubu with a death threat on social media.

Justice Emeka Nwite on Tuesday set the date after Terry J. Aondo, representing Thomas, and the prosecution’s lawyer, Victor Okoye, presented their arguments for and against the bail application.

At the resumed hearing, Okoye informed the court that the matter was slated for the hearing of the bail application and that he had filed and served his counter affidavit on the applicant’s lawyer.

Moving the bail motion, Aondo said the application, dated Dec. 20, was served on the same date.

He stated that it was brought pursuant to the 1999 Constitution and the Administration of Criminal Justice Act (ACJA), 2015.

The lawyer prayed the court for an order admitting Thomas to bail pending the hearing and determination of the charge before the court. He assured the court that his client would not jump bail.

Okoye, however, opposed the application, stating that a counter affidavit was filed on Dec. 30. He urged the court to refuse Thomas’s bail application.

He also asked the court to discountenance the exhibits attached to the bail request, arguing that the documents were extracted from the internet in contravention of Section 84 of the Evidence Act.

Furthermore, Okoye asserted that any newspaper publication sought to be tendered in court must be certified by the National Library.

“We submit that those printouts are not worth admitting as evidence,” he said.

Okoye also noted that Thomas claimed she was suffering from an ailment without providing any medical report to substantiate her claim.

He urged the court to dismiss the submission.

Aondo, however, interjected, arguing that Okoye could not orally contest Thomas’s ill-health, having failed to include this in their counter affidavit.

The senior lawyer further contended that the affidavit filed by the prosecution did not meet the requirements of Section 115 of the Evidence Act.

He cited Paragraph 17 of the affidavit, which he said also fell short of the requirements under Section 115 of the Evidence Act.

Aondo insisted that the prosecution’s argument could not prevent the court from exercising its discretionary power under Section 6(6) of the Constitution to grant bail.

He emphasized that the court’s power to admit the defendant to bail was not contingent on the presentation of a medical report, citing Sections 35 and 36 of the 1999 Constitution.

Aondo also referenced a Supreme Court decision on the admissibility of newspaper publications, stating that an affidavit presumed to be on oath is already certified.

He argued that the prosecution did not raise any issue suggesting that Thomas might escape if granted bail.

Aondo therefore prayed the court to exercise its discretionary power in favor of Thomas.

Justice Nwite adjourned the matter until Jan. 6, 2025, for ruling.

The judge, who mentioned that the case file would be remitted to the Chief Judge after the ruling, stated that his tenure as the vacation judge would end on that date.

Thomas was arraigned on Dec. 20 and subsequently remanded at the Suleja Correctional Centre after pleading not guilty to a three-count charge filed against her by the Inspector-General of Police (I-G).

She was arrested on allegations of harassing and threatening Seyi Tinubu, I-G Kayode Egbetokun, and Police Public Relations Officer Muyiwa Adejobi in a viral social media post.

In the charge marked FHC/ABJ/CR/636/2024, dated and filed on Dec. 18 by the police legal team led by A.A. Egwu, Thomas was sued as the sole defendant.

In Count One, Thomas was alleged to have, sometime in 2024, knowingly and intentionally transmitted communication in the form of a video recording via a computer system or network on her social media platforms. In the video, she allegedly made remarks in Yoruba, stating that “Mr. Seyi Tinubu would die this year, and misfortune and calamity had befallen the Tinubu family,” with the intent to bully, threaten, and harass Seyi Tinubu.

The communication was said to have placed Seyi in fear of death, violence, or bodily harm. The offense is contrary to and punishable under Section 24(2)(a) of the Cybercrimes (Prohibition, Prevention, Etc.) (Amendment) Act, 2024.

In Count Two, the defendant was alleged to have intentionally transmitted communication in the form of a video recording, making remarks in Yoruba to bully, threaten, and harass Mr. Egbetokun.

The communication reportedly placed Egbetokun in fear of death, violence, or bodily harm. The offense is contrary to and punishable under Section 24(2)(a) of the Cybercrimes (Prohibition, Prevention, Etc.) (Amendment) Act, 2024.

In Count Three, Thomas was accused of intentionally transmitting or causing the transmission of communication in the form of a video recording. In the video, she allegedly made remarks in Yoruba, stating that the children of Adejobi “would all die before his eyes” and that “he (Adejobi) will bury all his children in a single day,” with the intent to bully, threaten, and harass Mr. Muyiwa Adejobi.

The communication reportedly placed Adejobi in fear of the death of his loved ones. The offense is said to be contrary to and punishable under Section 24(2)(a) of the Cybercrimes (Prohibition, Prevention, Etc.) (Amendment) Act, 2024.