The Federal High Court in Abuja has approved an application by the Federal Government to protect the identity of a prosecution witness in the ongoing trial of six individuals accused of plotting a coup against Bola Tinubu.
Justice Joyce Abdulmalik granted the request on Wednesday after the prosecution argued that the witness, identified as a serving officer, could face security threats if exposed during proceedings.
The ruling came as the trial commenced following the defendants’ arraignment on April 22 on a 13-count charge bordering on treason, terrorism, failure to disclose information, and money laundering.
The defendants include 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 pleaded not guilty to the charges.
At the resumed hearing, prosecution counsel, Rotimi Oyedepo, told the court that four witnesses were present and that the government was ready to begin its case.
Three witnesses officials from Jaiz Bank, SunTrust Bank, and Providus Bank testified and presented documents said to have been obtained from the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission. The documents were admitted in evidence and later challenged during cross-examination by defence lawyers.
Controversy arose when the fourth witness was called, as the prosecution requested that the officer testify under protective conditions. Oyedepo urged the court to conceal the witness’s identity and shield him from public view to prevent what he described as “unnecessary attack.”
He based the application on Section 232 of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act, which allows courts to adopt protective measures in cases involving security concerns, especially terrorism-related offences.
Although defence lawyers did not oppose the request outright, they expressed concerns about the extent of the protection sought. They argued that withholding the witness’s identity could infringe on the defendants’ right to a fair hearing, insisting that proper identification is essential for effective cross-examination.
They stated that “protective measures must not override the constitutional right to fair hearing,” and suggested limiting public access to sensitive proceedings rather than granting full anonymity.
In response, Oyedepo maintained that the witness required full protection, noting that the law permits the use of initials or other non-identifying methods in appropriate circumstances.
Delivering her ruling, Justice Abdulmalik held that the prosecution had provided sufficient justification, particularly given the terrorism-related aspects of the case.
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, relying on Section 232(2) of the ACJA, ordered that the witness’s identity be concealed and that the name should not appear in court records or in any proceedings accessible to the parties or the public.
Following the ruling, the court briefly adjourned proceedings for about 30 minutes to allow officials to install a protective screen before the witness began testimony.
The trial is expected to continue with further evidence from the prosecution.
Advertisement
