The Federal High Court in Abuja has granted the Federal Government’s request to shield a prosecution witness in the trial of six persons accused of plotting a coup against President Bola Tinubu.
Justice Joyce Abdulmalik gave the order on Wednesday after the prosecution argued that the witness, said to be a serving officer, could face security risks if exposed during proceedings.
The ruling came as the trial commenced in the case, following the arraignment of the defendants 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; an electrician at the Presidential Villa, Zekeri Umoru; Bukar Kashim Goni; and a Zaria-based cleric, Abdulkadir Sani.
They all pleaded not guilty to the charges.
At the resumed hearing, prosecution counsel, Rotimi Oyedepo, told the court that four witnesses were in attendance and that the Federal Government was ready to open its case.
Three of the witnesses, said to be officials of Jaiz Bank, SunTrust Bank and Providus Bank, testified before the court.
They tendered documents allegedly obtained from the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC).
The documents were admitted in evidence and later subjected to cross-examination by the defence lawyers.
However, a dispute arose when the fourth witness was called.
Oyedepo applied to have the witness testify under protective conditions, urging the court to shield the officer from public view and conceal his identity to prevent what he described as an “unnecessary attack.”
He relied 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.
The prosecution insisted that the witness required full protection, saying exposure could endanger the officer’s life.
Oyedepo also told the court that the law allows the use of initials or other non-identifying methods in appropriate cases.
Although lawyers for the defendants did not oppose the application in principle, they objected to 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 affect the defendants’ right to a fair hearing.
They maintained that proper identification of a witness was necessary for testing credibility during cross-examination.
They said “protective measures must not override the constitutional right to fair hearing,” urging the court to balance national security concerns with the rights of the accused persons.
They also suggested that sensitive parts of the proceedings could be restricted from public access rather than granting the witness full anonymity.
Judge Grants Application
Delivering her ruling, Justice Abdulmalik held that the prosecution had sufficiently justified the request, especially because 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 and held that judicial authorities supported the grant of such measures in deserving cases.
She subsequently 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 the parties or the public.
The proceedings, which began around 11 am, were briefly stood down for about 30 minutes after the ruling to allow 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.
