The Federal Capital Territory (FCT) High Court in Gwarinpa, Abuja, on Tuesday, set 13 October for hearing of an application seeking special protection for an alleged 14-year-old rape victim being prepared to testify against an Abuja-based pastor accused of sexually assaulting her.
Judge Modupe Osho-Adebiyi, who is keen about promptly concluding the trial, said she would hear the application on 13 October and immediately rule on it. She said the trial may commence that day, after her ruling.
|
|
Mr Isah, the founder and General Overseer of Prophetic Voice of Fire Ministry International, Gwagwalada, Abuja, is standing trial on eight counts of raping the 14-year-old church member, child abduction, sexual exploitation and other related offences.
PREMIUM TIMES reported that Judge Modupe Osho-Adebiyi granted Mr Isah fresh bail in May after declining his request to retain the earlier bail terms granted by another judge. Instead, she imposed stiffer conditions, including a N50 million bail bond and two sureties who must be heads of pentecostal churches.
|
|
|
|---|
After granting the defendant bail, the judge adjourned the case for the prosecution to open its case by calling its first witness, the child complainant.
However, when the matter came up on Tuesday, the prosecution informed the court that it had filed an application seeking protective measures for the child before she gives evidence.
Adjournment
Both Mr Isah and the teenager, whose name is withheld over stigmatisation concerns, were present in court on Tuesday.
The prosecution lawyer, Aderonke Imana, of the Department of Public Prosecutions, Federal Ministry of Justice, told the court that although the matter was scheduled for hearing, the prosecution had filed an application for witness protection.
Responding, the defendant’s lawyer, O.U. Sule, a Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN), told the court he had not received the application.
After comparing the address on the court process with that on the defence lawyer’s earlier court filings, Judge Modupe Osho-Adebiyi found that the motion was served on a different address.
The prosecution then handed a copy of the application to Mr Sule, who asked for time to respond to it.
Judge Osho-Adebiyi, who expressed her resolve to quickly conclude the trial, initially considered fixing a date before the court’s annual vacation in July. But she eventually fixed 13 October for hearing of the application, her ruling, and commencement of trial. She also set 14 and 15 October for continuation of trial.
What prosecution asked for
In the application filed on 25 September 2025, a copy of which was obtained by PREMIUM TIMES, the prosecution urged the court to order special measures to protect the child complainant during the trial.
It asked the court to order that the child’s testimony be taken “by video link, behind a screen, or other method that the court deems fit” and that the proceedings, in so far as they concern the child’s evidence, be conducted in camera, excluding members of the public and the press.
It also sought an order permitting the child to testify “behind a screen, via video link, or through any other method that conceals her identity and prevents face to face contact with the defendant.”
The prosecution further asked the court to restrain the publication, broadcast or dissemination of the child’s name, image or any information capable of identifying her in connection with the proceedings.
As grounds for the application, the prosecution argued that the complainant is a minor whose privacy, dignity and mental wellbeing require special protection under Nigerian law. It said the charges involve alleged sexual and gender based violence, exposing the child to intimidation, embarrassment and public ridicule if she is required to testify openly.
It also argued that allowing the child to testify in open court could expose her to further psychological trauma and undermine her emotional recovery.
In a written address filed in support of the motion, the prosecution relied on Section 36(4)(a) and (b) of the Constitution, Sections 232 and 233 of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act (ACJA), 2015, and Sections 38, 204 and 205 of the Child Rights Act, 2003.
According to the prosecution, Section 36(4) of the Constitution permits a court to exclude the public from proceedings where it is necessary to protect private lives or where the interests of justice so require.
It argued that Sections 232 and 233 of the ACJA empower courts to adopt protective measures for vulnerable witnesses, while Sections 38, 204 and 205 of the Child Rights Act prohibit exposing children to unnecessary publicity and require confidentiality in proceedings involving child victims.
The prosecution maintained that the protective measures sought would not prejudice the defendant’s constitutional right to a fair hearing because he would still be able to hear the child’s testimony and challenge it through cross examination.
It framed the sole issue for determination as whether, having regard to the Constitution, the ACJA and the Child Rights Act, the court should exercise its discretion to grant protective measures for the child complainant in the interest of justice and the child’s welfare.
The prosecution urged the court to resolve the issue in its favour and grant all the reliefs sought in the motion.
Backstory
Police arrested Mr Isah in June 2025 over the alleged rape of a 14-year-old girl, who was a member of the media unit of his church.
READ ALSO: Two men who allegedly raped and beheaded a female nursing student arrested
He was first arraigned in July 2025 on four counts of rape before proceedings became dormant.
Following an application by the prosecution, the case was reassigned to Judge Osho-Adebiyi.
On 14 May, the prosecution re-arraigned Mr Isah on the amended eight charges of child rape, child abduction, sexual exploitation and related offences.
On 26 May, Judge Osho-Adebiyi granted him bail in the sum of N50 million with two sureties who must be heads of Pentecostal churches, among other conditions.
The terms were significantly stiffer than the N5 million bail earlier granted by the former trial judge.
