The Federal High Court in Abuja has ordered the State Security Service to investigate an alleged leaked video said to be connected with the trial of six defendants accused of involvement in an alleged plot to topple President Bola Tinubu’s administration.
Justice Joyce Abdulmalik gave the order on Tuesday after prosecution counsel, Rotimi Oyedepo, SAN, told the court that a video recording of one of the defendants’ statements had appeared on social media, contrary to an earlier order of the court.
Oyedepo, who is the Director of Public Prosecutions, said he saw the video on the page of social media influencer, Martins Vincent Otse, popularly known as VeryDarkMan.
He described the development as disturbing and a matter of national security.
“We tendered the video recording and served it on the defence. I know I served my colleagues,” Oyedepo said.
He told the court that the alleged leaked video had attracted more than 6,000 views online and argued that the development was prejudicial to the proceedings.
“What I saw yesterday is quite disturbing. I urge your lordship to investigate this video and confirm whether it is the same video before the court and whether it contravenes your lordship’s order,” he said.
Oyedepo also informed the court that VeryDarkMan was present in court, possibly to explain how he obtained the video.
However, the court did not formally acknowledge the influencer’s presence before making its order.
Responding to the prosecution’s claim, defence lawyers denied knowledge of how the video allegedly got to social media.
Counsel to the first defendant, Muhammed Ndayako, SAN, said the development was coming at a sensitive stage when the defence was moving bail applications.
“Our worry is that this is coming at the stage when we are trying to move our bail application. I am not even a social media person. I am not opposed to an investigation,” he said.
Some defence lawyers, including counsel to the fourth defendant, C.D. Okafor, urged the court to extend the investigation to members of the media covering the proceedings.
Counsel to the fifth defendant, M.A. Ibrahim, did not oppose the investigation but expressed doubt about its likely outcome.
Counsel to the sixth defendant, Sanusi Musa, SAN, objected to the request, arguing that there was no evidence before the court identifying who leaked the video.
“I am surprised that the DPP said the court should investigate this matter. Secondly, who are the suspects? The video might have been leaked from the court, it might be me, it might even be the DPP or from the Ministry of Justice,” he said.
He further argued that if the prosecution wanted the court to act, a formal application should be filed.
“Whatever the DPP said here cannot be acted upon without evidence. If he wants that, he should file an application. The EFCC also has a media department.
“My lord, while I thank God that I am not the one, I object to the suggestion that the matter be investigated,” he added.
In her ruling, Justice Abdulmalik affirmed the court’s power to protect witnesses and preserve the integrity of proceedings.
The judge referred to Section 232(5) of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act, 2015, which provides for the protection of vulnerable witnesses and prescribes consequences for breach of witness-protection measures or court orders made under the section.
She subsequently ordered the SSS to investigate any material on social media that may have contravened the court’s earlier orders and bring any culprit before the court.
The judge added that if any suspect is brought before the court over the alleged leak, that matter would be treated as a distinct case, while the present criminal trial would continue separately.
The defendants in the matter include retired Major General Mohammed Ibrahim Gana; retired Navy Captain Erasmus Ochegobia Victor; Ahmed Ibrahim, a police inspector; Zekeri Umoru, an electrician at the Presidential Villa; Bukar Kashim Goni; and Abdulkadir Sani, a Zaria-based Islamic cleric.
They are standing trial on 13 counts bordering on treason, terrorism, failure to disclose information and money laundering over an alleged failed plot to topple President Tinubu’s government.
The alleged plot was said to have been leaked to the authorities in September 2025, leading to the arrest of serving and retired military officers as well as alleged civilian collaborators.
Since the trial commenced, the prosecution has called four witnesses.
The fourth prosecution witness, an army officer identified only by the codename AAA for security reasons, had earlier brought video recordings of the defendants’ interrogations to court as exhibits.
At previous proceedings, the court played some of the video recordings, which showed the defendants making statements.
However, after some of the videos were played in court on May 11, defence lawyers objected to the admissibility of the statements and video recordings, arguing that the statements were not made voluntarily.
The objection led the court to order a trial-within-trial to determine whether the statements were voluntarily made.
At the resumed hearing on Tuesday, Oyedepo urged the court to again invoke Section 232 of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act to protect another witness, relying on the court’s earlier ruling.
The defence lawyers did not oppose the application.
The witness, identified by the codename DDD, told the court that he is a personnel of the Nigerian Army and that his duties include crime detection and investigation.
Led in evidence by Oyedepo, the witness said he knew all the defendants and was part of the team that investigated the alleged coup plot.
He also said he knew the earlier witness, AAA.
Oyedepo reminded the witness that the prosecution had sought to tender the defendants’ statements during AAA’s testimony and that the defence objected on the ground that the statements were allegedly obtained through coercion.
DDD told the court that the allegations of torture were unfounded, saying the investigation process did not involve torture or inducement.
He confirmed the defendants’ statements before the court, marked A1 to F, and said he was a member of the investigation team and also countersigned the statements.
Explaining how the statements were obtained, the witness said the procedure allowed investigators to make both audio-visual recordings and written statements.
He said the interview room was well ventilated and air-conditioned, adding that the defendants sat comfortably while making their statements.
According to him, each defendant was informed that whatever he said could be used against him in court.
“He is required to fill in his details and is informed of the cautionary words before endorsing them. He confirms that he understands them before proceeding to make written statements,” the witness said.
DDD also denied claims by the defence that the defendants’ feet were chained.
Under cross-examination by defence counsel, the witness maintained that none of the defendants requested a legal practitioner, legal aid, or the presence of family members before making their statements.
When asked whether he had any document before the court showing that the first defendant requested to make a statement without a lawyer, he referred to the video recording.
Counsel to the second defendant repeatedly asked whether, considering the gravity of the capital offence, it did not occur to the witness that a lawyer or family member ought to have been present even if the defendant declined one.
In response, DDD said some members of the interview team were lawyers.
He also told the court that the investigation leading to the defendants’ arrest was a multi-agency operation involving the Nigerian Army, the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission, the SSS, the Defence Intelligence Agency and other intelligence units.
He said the arrests were not part of his duties.
The witness admitted that the signing and countersigning of the statements were not captured in the audio-visual recording.
He also said he could not remember the agency that brought the third defendant to make his statement and could not be certain about the conditions under which the third defendant was kept by the agencies.
DDD said he knew the fourth defendant was illiterate and that about three officers were present when his statement was taken.
He denied shouting at the fourth defendant or threatening him while the statement was being taken.
He also denied knowledge of any allegation that the fourth defendant was held in an underground cell before he was invited to make his statement.
The witness said he had worked as an investigator for about 10 years, holds a Bachelor of Arts degree in History and International Relations from the University of Uyo and had attended advanced intelligence schools.
On the fifth defendant, DDD said he was educated and understood the law.
He also said he was not a member of the Special Investigation Panel and was not part of the arresting team.
He denied knowledge of the number of days the fifth defendant spent in custody before making his statement and also denied doing anything that could have caused a rise in the defendant’s blood pressure.
Before the leaked video issue was raised, the court had heard bail applications filed by the defendants.
The defence lawyers moved the applications one after another, urging the court to admit their clients to bail on liberal terms.
Oyedepo opposed the applications and urged the court to refuse them.
Justice Abdulmalik thereafter reserved ruling on the bail applications.
The case was adjourned until June 25 and June 30 for the first to third defendants to open their defence in the trial-within-trial.
The post Court Orders SSS Probe Into Leaked Video In Alleged Coup Plot Trial, Reserves Ruling On Defendants’ Bail Applications appeared first on TheNigeriaLawyer.
