Alleged Terrorism: Court Reserves Ruling on Admissibility of Defendants’ Statements

By Correspondent in Abuja.

The Federal High Court in Abuja on Wednesday adjourned sine die (indefinitely) to deliver its ruling on the admissibility of extra-judicial statements made by three terrorism suspects, after hearing final arguments in a trial-within-trial.

The case, presided over by Justice Emeka Nwite, involves Haruna Abbas, Ibrahim Musa, and Adam Suleiman, who are facing charges bordering on conspiracy, recruitment for terrorist training, surveillance of foreign embassies, and providing support for acts of terrorism.

The trial-within-trial was necessitated by objections from the defence counsel, who argued that the defendants’ statements were not made voluntarily.

At Wednesday’s proceedings, prosecution counsel, Mr. Bello Abu, told the court that during cross-examination, the first defendant, Abbas, admitted that his earlier claim of coercion in obtaining the statement was false.

Abu further noted that while the court had directed all parties to file written addresses, only the prosecution complied within the stipulated period, as one of the defence counsel failed to submit.

Although the case had initially been scheduled for October 8 for the adoption of written addresses, the prosecution applied for an accelerated hearing during the court’s vacation, which was granted by the Chief Judge of the Federal High Court.

After counsel concluded their arguments on Wednesday, Justice Nwite adjourned the matter indefinitely, stating that all parties would be given one week’s notice through the court registrar when the ruling is ready.

The case, which has lingered since 2014, has faced repeated delays, having been reassigned to different judges on at least three occasions, with each reassignment requiring the trial to start afresh.

Some of the charges against the defendants include:

Conspiracy to commit acts preparatory to terrorism by obtaining Nigerian international passports and Iranian visas to travel for terrorist training, contrary to Section 17 of the Terrorism (Prevention) Act, 2011 (as amended in 2013).

Recruiting and transporting young men, including the 2nd and 3rd defendants, to Iran for terrorist training, contrary to Section 1(1)(a) of the same Act, and punishable under Section 33(1)(a).

Rendering support to terrorism by agreeing to send persons for training in Iran, contrary to Section 4(1)(a) of the Act.

Participation in terrorist meetings, contrary to Section 3(a) of the Act.

Compiling and transmitting a list of American and Israeli establishments in Lagos, including the U.S. Consular Office, to an Iranian contact, Abu Ali.

Using encrypted communication software and coded language via email to conceal correspondence, contrary to Section 1(1)(a) of the Act.
Edited by Dada Ahmed.