The Federal High Court in Abuja on Wednesday granted an application by the Federal Government to shield a prosecution witness in the ongoing trial of six persons accused of plotting a coup against President Bola Tinubu.
Justice Joyce Abdulmalik approved the request for protective measures after the prosecution argued that the witness, described as a serving officer, faced security risks if exposed during proceedings.
The ruling came as the trial of the defendants commenced, following their arraignment on April 22 on a 13-count charge bordering on treason, terrorism, failure to disclose information and money laundering.
The defendants are a retired Major General, Mohammed Ibrahim Gana; a retired Navy Captain, Erasmus Ochegobia Victor; a police inspector, Ahmed Ibrahim; and an electrician at the Presidential Villa, Zekeri Umoru. Others are Bukar Kashim Goni and Abdulkadir Sani, a cleric based in Zaria.
All six had pleaded not guilty to the charges.
At the resumed hearing on Wednesday, prosecution counsel, Rotimi Oyedepo, informed the court that four witnesses were in attendance and that the government was ready to open its case.
Three of the witnesses, officials of Jaiz Bank, SunTrust Bank and Providus Bank, testified and tendered documents said to have been obtained from the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission.
The documents, admitted in evidence by the court, were subsequently subjected to cross-examination by defence counsel.
Trouble, however, started when the fourth witness was called.
Oyedepo applied for the witness to testify under protective conditions, urging the court to shield the officer from public view and conceal his identity to prevent what he termed “unnecessary attack.”
He anchored his application on Section 232 of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act, which empowers courts to adopt protective measures in cases involving security concerns, particularly terrorism-related offences.
Although lawyers for the defendants did not oppose the application in principle, they raised concerns over the scope of the protection being sought.
The defence teams argued that while shielding the witness from public exposure could be justified, denying them access to the witness’s identity would undermine the defendants’ right to a fair hearing.
They maintained that proper identification of a witness is essential for testing credibility during cross-examination, adding that the provisions of Section 232 do not dispense with that requirement.
They said, “protective measures must not override the constitutional right to fair hearing,” urging the court to strike a balance between national security considerations and the rights of the accused persons.
They further suggested that sensitive aspects of the proceedings could be restricted from public access rather than granting full anonymity to the witness.
In response, Oyedepo insisted that the witness required comprehensive protection, stressing that exposure could endanger the officer’s life.
He told the court that the law permits the use of initials or other non-identifying methods in appropriate cases.
Delivering her ruling, Justice Abdulmalik held that the prosecution had sufficiently justified the request, particularly in light of the terrorism-related count in the charge.
She said, “The law permits protective measures, including non-disclosure of names, addresses and contact details where the court is satisfied that security concerns exist.”
The judge relied on Section 232(2) of the ACJA, noting that judicial authorities support the grant of such measures in deserving cases.
Consequently, she ordered that the identity of the witness be shielded and directed that the name should not appear in court records or in any proceedings accessible to either the parties or the public.
The proceedings, which began around 11am, were briefly stood down for about 30 minutes after the ruling to enable court officials to set up a protective screen before the witness commenced testimony.
The case is expected to continue with further evidence from the prosecution.
Leave a comment