Manny Ita –
The Federal High Court in Abuja has granted permission for a prosecution witness to testify under protective conditions in the ongoing trial of a retired army general and five others accused of plotting a failed coup against President Bola Tinubu.
Justice Joyce Abdulmalik approved the request after the prosecution argued that the witness required protection for security reasons as proceedings commenced.
Under the ruling, the witness will testify behind a screen to conceal their identity from the public, and their real name will not be disclosed during the trial.
The federal government has filed a 13-count charge against the defendants, including allegations of treason, terrorism, failure to disclose information, and money laundering. Those standing trial are Mohammed Ibrahim Gana, a retired major-general; Erasmus Ochegobia Victor, a retired navy captain; Ahmed Ibrahim, a police inspector; Zekeri Umoru, an electrician at the Presidential Villa; Bukar Kashim Goni; and Abdulkadir Sani, a cleric based in Zaria. All six pleaded not guilty when they were arraigned on April 22.
At the start of the trial, prosecution counsel Rotimi Oyedepo informed the court that four witnesses were ready to testify. Three witnesses from Jaiz Bank, SunTrust Bank, and Providus Bank gave evidence and submitted documents obtained from the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission, which were admitted by the court.
When the fourth witness was called, the prosecution requested protective measures, citing potential security risks and relying on provisions of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act that allow such arrangements in sensitive cases, particularly those involving terrorism.
Defence lawyers did not oppose shielding the witness from public view but insisted that the witness’s identity must still be disclosed to the defence to ensure a fair hearing. They argued that complete anonymity could hinder proper cross-examination and undermine the credibility of the trial process.
In response, the prosecution maintained that full protection was necessary, stating that the witness is a serving officer who could face serious risks if identified.
In her ruling, Justice Abdulmalik held that the application was justified, especially given the nature of the charges. She affirmed that the law permits protective measures, including withholding names and personal details, where security concerns exist.
The court subsequently ordered that the witness’s identity be concealed and not included in publicly accessible records. Proceedings were briefly paused to allow the installation of the protective screen before the witness continued testimony.
The trial is ongoing.
