The Federal High Court in Abuja on Wednesday approved an application by the Federal Government to protect the identity of a prosecution witness in the ongoing trial of six persons accused of plotting a coup against President Bola Tinubu.
Justice Joyce Abdulmalik granted the request after the prosecution argued that the witness, identified as a serving officer, could face security threats if exposed during proceedings.
The ruling came as the trial commenced following the defendants’ arraignment on April 22 on a 13-count charge bordering on treason, terrorism, failure to disclose information and money laundering.
Those standing trial include a retired Major General, Mohammed Ibrahim Gana; a retired Navy Captain, Erasmus Ochegobia Victor; a police inspector, Ahmed Ibrahim; and a Presidential Villa electrician, Zekeri Umoru. Others are Bukar Kashim Goni and Abdulkadir Sani, a Zaria-based cleric.
All the defendants pleaded not guilty to the charges.
At the resumed hearing, prosecution counsel, Rotimi Oyedepo, informed the court that four witnesses were present and the government was ready to open its case.
Three of the witnesses, officials from Jaiz Bank, SunTrust Bank and Providus Bank, testified and tendered documents said to have been obtained through the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission.
The documents were admitted in evidence and subsequently examined by defence counsel.
Proceedings, however, took a turn when the fourth witness was called, as the prosecution sought protective measures to conceal the officer’s identity and shield him from public view.
Oyedepo anchored the application on Section 232 of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act, which allows courts to grant protective measures in cases involving security concerns.
Although defence counsel did not oppose the request outright, they argued that concealing the identity of the witness could undermine the defendants’ right to fair hearing.
They maintained that proper identification of witnesses is essential for effective cross-examination and urged the court to balance national security considerations with the constitutional rights of the accused.
The defence also suggested limiting public access to sensitive aspects of the proceedings rather than granting full anonymity.
In response, the prosecution insisted that the witness required full protection, noting that exposure could pose a serious risk to the officer’s safety.
Delivering her ruling, Justice Abdulmalik held that the prosecution had sufficiently justified the request, particularly given the nature of the charges.
She ruled that the law permits non-disclosure of a witness’s name and personal details where security concerns are established.
The judge consequently ordered that the witness’s identity be concealed and excluded from court records accessible to both parties and the public.
Following the ruling, proceedings were briefly adjourned to allow for the installation of a protective screen before the witness commenced testimony.
The trial is expected to continue with further presentation of evidence by the prosecution.
