BREAKING: Court to shield prosecution witness as coup trial of army general, others begins
The Federal High Court in Abuja has granted an application allowing a prosecution witness to testify under protective conditions in the trial of an army general and five others charged with plotting a failed coup against President Bola Tinubu last year.
The Federal High Court in Abuja has granted an application allowing a prosecution witness to testify under protective conditions in the trial of an army general and five others charged with plotting a failed coup against President Bola Tinubu last year.
The judge, Joyce Abdulmalik, granted the application after the prosecution said the measure was needed for security reasons as the trial progressed.
The measure includes permitting the prosecution witness to testify behind a shield that will block them from being seen by the court audience. Also, the real name of the witness will not be disclosed under the protective measure.
The federal government filed 13 counts of treason, terrorism, failure to disclose information and money laundering against a retired army general and five others over an alleged plot against President Bola Tinubu.
The defendants are Mohammed Ibrahim Gana, a retired major-general; Erasmus Ochegobia Victor, a retired navy captain; Ahmed Ibrahim, a police inspector; and Zekeri Umoru, an electrician at the Presidential Villa. Others are Bukar Kashim Goni and Abdulkadir Sani, a Zaria-based Islamic cleric.
They were arraigned on 22 April and all six pleaded not guilty when the charges were read in court.
At Wednesday’s proceedings, which marked the start of trial, prosecution lawyer Rotimi Oyedepo told the court that four witnesses were present and the prosecution was ready to proceed.
Three witnesses, drawn from Jaiz Bank, SunTrust Bank and Providus Bank, testified. They tendered letters obtained from the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission. The letters were admitted in evidence and the witnesses responded to questions under cross-examination by defence lawyers.
When the fourth witness was called, Mr Oyedepo applied for protective measures, saying the witness should be shielded to prevent “unnecessary attack” and protect the officer’s identity. He relied on Section 232 of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act (ACJA).
He said the provision allows courts to adopt protective measures in appropriate cases, especially in matters involving security and terrorism allegations.
Lawyers to the defendants did not oppose witness protection. However, they insisted that the defence must still know the identity of the witness to ensure fair hearing.
They argued that shielding the witness from the public may be justified, but full anonymity from the defence would be prejudicial and would prevent proper testing of credibility.
They added that Section 232 of the ACJA allows protective measures but does not remove the need for basic identification within proceedings. They urged the court to strike a balance between security concerns and fair trial rights, suggesting that sensitive parts of the proceedings could be restricted from public access if necessary.
In response, Mr Oyedepo insisted that full protection was necessary. He said the witness is a serving officer who faces security risks if exposed.
He also said the law allows the use of initials or other non-identifying methods.
Ruling on the application, the judge held that the request was justified, particularly as one of the counts relates to terrorism.
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.”
She relied on Section 232 of the ACJA, cited similar cases and held that existing judicial authority supports such protection in appropriate cases.
The judge granted the application and ordered that the witness’s identity be shielded. She further directed that the name must not appear in court records or proceedings accessible to parties or the public.
The matter began at about 11 a.m. The judge granted the application around 2 p.m. and paused the proceedings for about 30 minutes to allow the protective screen to be set up before the witness testified..
