A prosecution told the Federal High Court in Abuja on Tuesday that six men facing charges over last year’s failed coup against President Bola Tinubu voluntarily gave confessiomal statements to interrogators during investigations.
The witness, who testified as the first witness in a trial-within-trial organised to determine the voluntariness of the written statements of the defendants, said the interrogation sessions for each of the defendants were captured in video recordings.
|
|
Judge Joyce Abdulmalik of the Federal High Court in Abuja paused the main trial on Monday to pave the way for the trial-within-trial, after the six defendants challenged the voluntariness of their statements as the prosecution sought to tender them as exhibits.
The News Agency of Nigeria (NAN) reports that the defence lawyers argued that their clients made the statements during the interview sessions under duress.
|
|
|
|---|
Charges and coup
PREMIUM TIMES reported that, on 22 April, the federal government arraigned a retired army general, Mohammed Ibrahim Gana, and five others.
The five co-defendants include Erasmus Ochegobia Victor, a retired navy captain; Ahmed Ibrahim, a police inspector; and Zekeri Umoru, an electrician at the Presidential Villa.
The rest are Bukar Kashim Goni and Abdulkadir Sani, a Zaria-based Islamic cleric.
They were accused of being part of a conspiracy to topple the President Bola Tinubu-led 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.
Some serving military officers are undergoing trial before the military’s General Court Martial over the alleged failed coup. Information about the coup plot was said to have been leaked to the authorities last September, prompting the arrest of about 40 suspects, among whom were serving and retired military officers as well as 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.
Since the trial began, the prosecution has called four witnesses.
The fourth, 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.
How statements of defendants were obtained
At the commencement of proceedings, the trial judge cautioned parties to restrict themselves to issues relating to voluntariness of the statements and avoid delving into substantive matters already pending in the main trial.
The federal government’s lawyer, Rotimi Oyedepo, a Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN), who is also the Director, Public Prosecution for the Federation, informed the court that he had three witnesses lined up for the trial-within-trial.
The lawyer then called the first among them, an officer of the Nigerian Army Corps of Military Police.
The witness identified by codename AAA over security concerns testified as the fourth prosecution witness in the main trialm
In his testimony in the trial-within-trial, the witness told the court that the defendants were calm, unagitated and fully aware of their constitutional rights before making their statements.
He maintained that the investigation process complied with standard operating procedures and best investigative practices as stipulated by the Administration of Criminal Justice Act (ACJA), 2015.
Mr Oyedepo, thereafter, tendered the statements of the six defendants obtained by the Special Investigative Panel (SIP) and the Military Police.
Ms Abdulmalik admitted the first to the fifth defendant’s statements as Exhibits A to E, while that of the sixth defendant was admitted as Exhibit F.
The prosecution also tendered a black external hard drive and a flash drive said to contain video recordings of the defendants’ extra-judicial statements, alongside certificates of identification.
Defence lawyers did not raise objections to their admissibility during the trial-within-trial and the court admitted the devices as Exhibits G, G1, H and H1.
Testifying, the witness insisted that no defendant was denied access to legal representation and that all the suspects were informed of their rights, including the right to remain silent and the right to engage counsel of their choice.
Speaking specifically on the first defendant, Mohammed Ibrahim Gana, a retired major-general, the witness described him as a highly respected senior military officer who remained calm throughout the interrogation process.
According to him, the defendant was placed in a properly ventilated room, cautioned about his rights and informed that any statement made could later be tendered in court as his own side of the story.
The witness further told the court that the video recordings showed no sign of coercion, intimidation or inducement and argued that the similarity between the oral and written statements reinforced the claim that they were voluntarily made.
On allegations that the written statements did not correspond exactly with the recorded interviews, the witness explained that written accounts could not be word-for-word reproductions of oral interviews because “human beings are not computers.”
He also maintained that the military investigation team employed modern investigative techniques and had no reason to force suspects into making statements.
The witness, who testified under protection, gave similar testimony regarding the second defendant, identified as Erasmus Ochegobia Victor, a retired captain of the Nigerian Navy.
He stated that the senior military officer voluntarily elected to reduce his oral statement into writing after speaking in the recorded interview.
He denied allegations that the defendant was coerced into pleading for clemency and insisted that all statements were made freely in the interest of justice.
Regarding the third defendant, Ahmed Ibrahim, an inspector of the Nigeria Police Force, the witness dismissed claims of torture and coercion.
He stated that the video recordings showed the defendant in a calm and relaxed posture throughout the interview process.
He also rejected suggestions that the defendant might have been restrained outside the camera frame, arguing that the duration and nature of the video showed no sign of tension or force.
On the fourth defendant, identified as Umoru Zekeri, the witness expressed surprise over allegations of involuntariness of his statement and maintained that the defendant freely narrated events and locations allegedly known only to him.
The witness also testified that the fifth defendant, identified as Bukar Kashim Goni, willingly gave his account after being informed of his rights.
He said Mr Goni chose to tell his own side of the story.
Concerning the sixth defendant, an Islamic cleric, the witness explained that an interpreter was provided after the defendant indicated he could neither speak nor write in English fluently.
READ ALSO: UPDATED: Court orders trial-within-trial as coup plot suspects deny voluntariness of written statements
He said the suspect’s statements were translated between Hausa and English in line with fair hearing requirements before they were read back to him for confirmation.
Cross-examination
During cross-examination by defence counsel, the witness admitted that he was not a member of the Special Investigative Panel but stated that he participated intermittently in the investigation process.
He also acknowledged that the video recordings shown in court related only to statements made before the Military Police and not those taken before the SIP.
Fielding further questions, the witness admitted that some video recordings and written statements were made on different dates but maintained that the sequence did not affect their voluntariness so long as they were freely made.
The witness further confirmed that none of the statements tendered before the court bore endorsements by lawyers. He said no lawyers, civil society representatives or Justices of the Peace were present during the recordings.
However, he insisted that all the defendants were informed of their rights to legal representation but did not request lawyers during the interrogation sessions.
He also explained that oral accounts were later reduced into writing and endorsed by the suspects after being read back to them.
The judge adjourned the matter until 13 May for continuation of the trial-within-trial.
(NAN)
