The Federal High Court in Abuja on Tuesday ordered an investigation into an alleged leaked video which has stirred controversy in the trial of five suspects charged with being being part of last year’s failed plot to topple President Bola Tinubu’s administration.
Judge Joyce Abdulmalik made the order following claims by prosecution lawyer Rotimi Oyedepo, a Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN), who is the Director of Public Prosecution (DPP), that the video recording of one of the defendant’s statements had appeared on social media, contrary to an earlier court order.
He said he watched the video on the page of social media influencer Martins Vincent Otse, popularly known as VeryDarkMan (VDM).
He described the development as a national security issue. “We tendered the video recording and served it on the defence. I know I served my colleagues,” he said.
Continuing, Mr Oyedepo argued that the development was extremely prejudicial and disturbing. He noted that the social media post had attracted more than 6,000 views.
He argued that since there is a law protecting witnesses, the court should direct an investigation into the matter.
“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.
He also informed the court that VDM was present in court to perhaps tell the court how he got the video.
Reacting to the claim, all the defence lawyers took turns to deny knowledge of how the video leaked into the social media space.
“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,” the lawyer to the first defendant, Muhammed Ndayako, a SAN, said.
Apart from their denial, some of the defence lawyers, including that of the fourth defendant, C.D. Okafor urged the court to investigate members of the media who have been covering the proceedings.
While not opposing the probe, the fifth defendant, M.A Ibrahim, expressed doubts about the prospect of such investigation. The lawyer to the sixth defendant, Sanusi Musa, another SAN, outrightly objected to any investigation.
“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.”
“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 said.
Judge takes decision
Ruling on the issue, who the judge did not acknowledge that Very Dark Man was in court, affirmed the court’s power to direct the protection of witnesses.
She noted that Section 232(5) of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act 2015 provides for the protection of vulnerable witnesses and prescribes consequences for any breach of witness protection measures or court orders made under that section.
Subsequently, Mrs Abdulmalik ordered the SSS to investigate any evidence on social media that may have “contravened the court’s earlier orders and bring any culprit before the court.”
She added that if such suspects are brought, the matter will be a “distinct case” while the current matter continues separately.
The six defendants charged in the case include a retired major general, Mohammed Ibrahim Gana, and a retired navy captain, Erasmus Ochegobia Victor.
The rest are Ahmed Ibrahim, a police inspector; and Zekeri Umoru, an electrician at the Presidential Villa; Bukar Kashim Goni and Abdulkadir Sani, a Zaria-based Islamic cleric.
They were accused of being part of a conspiracy to topple President Tinubu’s government. Information about the alleged secret plot was leaked to the authorities last September, leading to the arrest of serving and retired military officers alongside their alleged civilian conspirators.
The six men charged before the Federal High Court in Abuja face 13 counts of treason, terrorism, failure to disclose information, and money laundering over the alleged failed coup.
Trial
Since the trial began, the prosecution has called four witnesses.
The fourth prosecution witness, an army officer identified by the codename AAA for security reasons, has yet to be discharged. The prosecution witness brought video recordings of the defendants’ interrogations to court as exhibits.
At previous hearings the court played some of the video recordings during proceedings. The video showed the defendants making statements.
However, after the video was played in court on 11 May, the defence lawyers took turns to object to the admissibility of the statements and video recordings the prosecution sought to tender, arguing that the statements were not made voluntarily.
The objection prompted the judge to order a trial-within-trial.
PREMIUM TIMES reported that on 13 May, the first prosecution witness in the trial-within-trial, an Nigerian Army officer involved in the investigation, told the court that the defendants made their statements voluntarily.
He said the process was recorded and due procedure followed. He denied torture or inducement and said no defendant requested a lawyer or family member.
Another witness testifies
Earlier, at the resumed proceedings on Tuesday, the prosecution lawyer, Mr Oyedepo, urged the court to invoke the provisions of Section 232 of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act to protect the witness. He relied on the court’s earlier ruling and urged the court to grant the oral application.
All the lawyers to the defendants said they were aware of the earlier ruling and therefore did not object.
Led in evidence by Mr Oyedepo, the witness, codenamed DDD, identified himself as a personnel of the Nigerian Army. He said his duties include crime detention and crime investigation.
He said he knew all the defendants. He also said he was part of the team that investigated the alleged coup plot. He further told the court that he knew officer AAA.
Mr Oyedepo reminded the witness that on 11 May, AAA testified as the fourth prosecution witness and that the prosecution sought to tender the defendants’ statements. He noted that the defence objected on the grounds that the statements were obtained through coercion.
In response, DDD told the court that the allegations of torture “were unfounded because the investigation process did not involve torture or any form of inducement.”
The witness then confirmed the statements of the defendants before the court, marked A1 to F. On the role he played in obtaining them, he said he was a member of the investigation team and also countersigned the statements.
Explaining how the statements were obtained, DDD 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 and that the defendants sat comfortably while making their statements.”
He added that 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.”
He also dismissed allegations by the defence that the defendants’ feet were chained.
Cross-examination
The defence lawyers for all the defendants took turns to cross-examine the witness.
Fielding questions from the lawyers, DDD maintained that that none of the defendants requested for a legal practitioner, legal aid, or the presence of family members.
The witness, who acknowledged that the defendants were charged with a capital offence, was asked whether he had any document before the court showing that the first defendant requested to make a statement without the presence of a lawyer. Responding, the witness referred to the video.
When the lawyer to the second defendant repeatedly asked whether, based on his training and considering the gravity of the offence, it did not occur to him that a lawyer or family member ought to have been present even if the defendant declined one, the witness responded that some members of the interview team were lawyers.
He said the investigation that led to the defendants’ arrest was a multi-agency operation including the Nigerian Army, the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC), SSS, Defence Intelligence Agency (DIA), and other intelligence units. He added that the arrests were not part of his duties.
He admitted that the signing and countersigning of the statement were not captured in the audio visual recording.
The witness said he could not remember the agency that brought the third defendant to make his statement.
He added that he could not be certain about the conditions under which the third defendant was kept by those agencies.
He said he knew the fourth defendant was illiterate and that about three officers were present when the statement was taken.
He denied shouting at the fourth defendant or threatening him in the course of taking the statement. 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.
He said he holds a Bachelor of Arts degree in History and International Relations from the University of Uyo and had also attended advanced intelligence schools.
He further said the fifth defendant was educated and understood the law.
He noted he was not a member of the Special Investigation Panel and was not part of the arresting team.
He also denied knowledge of the number of days the fifth defendant spent in custody before making his statement.
DDD also denied doing anything to the defendant that could have caused a rise in blood pressure.
READ ALSO: EXCLUSIVE: 30 witnesses to testify against suspected Nigerian coup plotters (FULL LIST)
Bail application
Before Mr Oyedepo raised the issue of the leaked video, the court was set to hear the bail applications filed by the defendants.
On after the other, defence lawyers moved their clients’ applications asking the court to grant their clients bail in liberal terms.
In response, Mr Oyedepo opposed all the applications and urged the court to refuse the requests. The court thereafter reserved ruling on the applications.
Mr Abdulmalik adjourned the case until 25 and 30 June for the first to third defendants to open their defence in the trial-within-trial.