Alleged Coup: Court Shields Witness as Bankers Testify in High-Profile Trial

By correspondent in Abuja.

The Federal High Court in Abuja on Wednesday granted a request by the Federal Government to conceal the identity of a key witness in the ongoing trial of six suspected coup plotters, citing security concerns tied to terrorism-related allegations.

The Presiding judge, Justice Joyce Abdulmalik, approved the application following submissions by prosecuting counsel, Rotimi Oyedepo, SAN, and arguments from defence lawyers, who did not oppose the move but urged the court to protect the defendants’ right to a fair hearing.

The Federal Government had earlier filed a 13-count charge against the accused, bordering on alleged treason, terrorism, failure to disclose security intelligence, and money laundering linked to terrorism financing.

The defendants,retired Maj.-Gen. Mohammed Ibrahim Gana, retired Capt. Erasmus Ochegobia Victor, Insp. Ahmed Ibrahim, Zekeri Umoru, Bukar Kashim Goni, and Abdulkadir Sani,had all pleaded not guilty when arraigned on April 22.

At Wednesday’s proceedings, three witnesses from Jaiz Bank, SunTrust Bank, and Providus Bank testified, presenting documentary evidence obtained from the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC).

The court admitted the documents as exhibits after they were tendered by the prosecution, with the witnesses subsequently cross-examined by defence counsel.

Tension rose, however, when the prosecution called its fourth witness and requested that the individual’s identity be protected from both the public and the Nigerian Army, citing potential security threats.

Oyedepo argued that the witness, a serving officer, could face “unnecessary attack” if exposed, relying on provisions of Section 232 of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act (ACJA), 2015.

While defence lawyers agreed that shielding the witness from public exposure could be justified, they insisted that complete anonymity must not undermine their ability to test the witness’s credibility,urgimg the court to strike a balance between national security and the constitutional right to a fair trial.

In her ruling, Justice Abdulmalik held that the application was valid, particularly given the gravity of the charges, including terrorism.

She affirmed that the law permits protective measures such as withholding names, addresses, and other identifying details where security risks are established.

“The court is satisfied that the request is justified under the law,” she ruled, citing Section 232(2) of the ACJA and relevant judicial precedents.

The court consequently ordered that the witness’s identity be shielded entirely, directing that no identifying information be included in court records or proceedings accessible to either the parties or the public.

Proceedings were briefly adjourned to allow for the installation of protective measures, including a screen, before the witness could testify.
The trial continues.
Edited by Dada Ahmed.