Court orders investigation into leaked video as witness testifies in coup case

The Federal High Court in Abuja has ordered an investigation into a leaked video that has caused a stir in the trial of five suspects charged with attempting to overthrow President Bola Tinubu's government last year.

Judge Joyce Abdulmalik issued the order after prosecution lawyer Rotimi Oyedepo, a Senior Advocate of Nigeria and the Director of Public Prosecution, claimed that a video of one defendant's statement was shared on social media, which violated a previous court order.

Oyedepo said he saw the video on social media influencer Martins Vincent Otse's page, known as VeryDarkMan. He called it a national security issue. "We tendered the video recording and served it on the defence. I know I served my colleagues," he stated.

He argued that the leak was very harmful and troubling. He pointed out that the social media post had over 6,000 views. He insisted that, since there are laws that protect witnesses, the court should investigate the situation.

"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 mentioned that VDM was present in court to explain how he obtained the video. In response, all the defence lawyers denied knowing how the video got to social media.

"Our worry is that this is coming at a time when we are trying to move our bail application. I am not even a social media person. I am not opposed to an investigation," said the lawyer for the first defendant, Muhammed Ndayako, a SAN.

Some defence lawyers, including the one representing the fourth defendant, C.D. Okafor, asked the court to look into the media members covering the case. While not opposing the probe, the lawyer for the fifth defendant, M.A Ibrahim, expressed doubt about the investigation. Sanusi Musa, the lawyer for the sixth defendant, another SAN, outrightly rejected the 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," he said.

"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.

Ruling on the issue, the judge confirmed the court's authority to protect witnesses. She referenced Section 232(5) of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act 2015, which provides for the protection of vulnerable witnesses and outlines consequences for breaching witness protection measures or court orders.

Mrs Abdulmalik then instructed the SSS to investigate any evidence on social media that may have violated the court's earlier orders and bring any offenders before the court. She stated that if suspects are identified, they will face a separate case while the current matter continues.

The six defendants in this case include retired major general Mohammed Ibrahim Gana and retired navy captain Erasmus Ochegobia Victor. The others are police inspector Ahmed Ibrahim, electrician Zekeri Umoru, Islamic cleric Bukar Kashim Goni, and Abdulkadir Sani from Zaria.

They are accused of being part of a conspiracy to overthrow President Tinubu's government. Information about this alleged secret plot was leaked to authorities last September, leading to the arrest of serving and retired military officers along with their civilian accomplices.

The six men face 13 charges, including treason, terrorism, failure to disclose information, and money laundering related to the failed coup attempt.

Trial

Since the trial started, the prosecution has called four witnesses. The fourth witness, an army officer known by the codename AAA for security reasons, has yet to be discharged. The prosecution presented video recordings of the defendants' interrogations as evidence.

Previous court sessions included playing some of these video recordings, showing the defendants making statements. However, after the video was shown on May 11, the defence lawyers objected to the admissibility of the statements and video recordings, claiming they were not made voluntarily.

This led the judge to order a trial-within-trial. PREMIUM TIMES reported that on May 13, the first prosecution witness in the trial-within-trial, an army officer involved in the investigation, stated in court that the defendants made their statements voluntarily.

He testified that the process was recorded and that all proper procedures were followed. He denied any claims of torture or inducement and stated that no defendant asked for a lawyer or family member.

Another witness testifies

Earlier on Tuesday, during the resumed proceedings, prosecution lawyer Mr Oyedepo asked the court to invoke Section 232 of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act to protect the witness. He relied on the court's earlier ruling and asked the court to approve the oral application.

All the lawyers for the defendants acknowledged the previous ruling and did not object. Led by Mr Oyedepo, the witness, codenamed DDD, identified himself as a member of the Nigerian Army. His duties include crime detention and investigation.

He stated that he knew all the defendants and was part of the team that looked into the alleged coup plot. He also acknowledged that he knew officer AAA.

Mr Oyedepo reminded the witness that AAA had testified on May 11 and that the prosecution sought to present the defendants' statements. He noted that the defence objected, claiming the statements were obtained through coercion.

In reply, DDD said the torture claims were baseless because the investigation did not involve torture or any inducement. The witness confirmed the defendants' statements before the court, marked A1 to F. He mentioned that he was part of the investigation team and also countersigned the statements.

Explaining how the statements were obtained, DDD said the procedure allowed investigators to make audio-visual recordings and written statements. He added that the interview room was well ventilated and air-conditioned and the defendants were comfortable while giving their statements.

He noted that each defendant was informed that anything they said could be used against them 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 explained.

He also rejected claims from the defence that the defendants' feet were chained.

Cross-examination

The defence lawyers took turns to cross-examine the witness. When asked questions, DDD maintained that none of the defendants asked for a lawyer, legal aid, or family members to be present.

The witness, who acknowledged that the defendants were charged with a serious offence, was asked if he had any documents showing that the first defendant requested to make a statement without a lawyer. He pointed to the video.

When the lawyer for the second defendant repeatedly asked if it did not seem necessary for a lawyer or family member to be present, even if the defendant declined, the witness said some interview team members were lawyers.

He mentioned that the investigation that led to the defendants' arrests involved multiple agencies, including the Nigerian Army, the EFCC, SSS, DIA, and others. He added that the arrests were not part of his duties.

He admitted that signing and countersigning the statements were not recorded in the audio-visual recording. The witness claimed he could not remember which agency brought the third defendant to make his statement.

He said he could not be sure about the conditions the third defendant was held in by those agencies. He stated that he knew the fourth defendant was illiterate and that three officers were present when the statement was taken.

He denied shouting or threatening the fourth defendant while taking the statement. He also said he did not know about any claims that the fourth defendant was held in an underground cell before making his statement.

The witness, who has worked as an investigator for about ten years, holds a Bachelor of Arts degree in History and International Relations from the University of Uyo and has attended advanced intelligence schools.

He said the fifth defendant was educated and understood the law. He stated he was not part of the Special Investigation Panel and was not involved in the arrests.

He also denied knowing how many days the fifth defendant spent in custody before making his statement. DDD denied doing anything to the defendant that would have raised his blood pressure.

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. One after the other, defence lawyers presented their clients' applications, asking the court to grant bail on liberal terms.

In response, Mr Oyedepo opposed all the applications and urged the court to deny the requests. The court then reserved its ruling on the applications.

Mr Abdulmalik adjourned the case until June 25 and 30 for the first to third defendants to begin their defence in the trial-within-trial.