The Federal High Court in Abuja postponed on Tuesday proceedings in the trial of the alleged coup plotters as a result of disputes over the interpretation of the Hausa testimony of a defendant.
Judge Joyce Abdulmalik adjourned the proceedings until 20 July following the repeated complaint of defence lawyer Sanusi Musa, a Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN), that interpreters were not accurately translating the testimony of the sixth defendant, Abdulkadir Sani.
|
|
Mr Sani is challenging the voluntariness of his statement that the prosecution seeks to tender as evidence.
The judge discharged Mr Shani and directed the parties to produce a neutral interpreter from the defendant’s exact linguistic background, rather than relying on a general Hausa interpreter.
|
|
|
|---|
“Find out exactly where this witness is from,” the judge said, explaining that the court needed a neutral interpreter who could accurately interpret the witness’ evidence for both the court and the parties.
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 are Erasmus Ochegobia Victor, a retired navy captain; Ahmed Ibrahim, a police inspector; Zekeri Umoru, an electrician at the Presidential Villa; Bukar Kashim Goni; and Mr Sani, a Zaria-based Islamic cleric.
The six men are accused of being part of a conspiracy to topple the President Bola Tinubu-led government. They, however, pleaded not guilty to the charges.
Incessant change of interpreters
On Tuesday, disputes repeatedly arose over the interpretation of the witness’ testimony.
Mr Musa challenged the first interpreter, a young man, for not accurately translating the witness’ evidence.
The court allowed another interpreter, a woman to take over, but the defence again complained that the interpretation did not accurately reflect the witness’s testimony.
A third interpreter, also a young lawyer associated with the defence team, was called in to assist. Before he began interpreting, Mr Musa informed the court that if the lawyer assumed the role of interpreter, he would no longer act as counsel in the proceedings.
As the witness continued his testimony, the defence again complained that the witness was not understanding the questions put to him.
At that point, Judge Abdulmalik observed that an interpreter owed duties to both the court and the witness.
The situation forced the judge to adjourn the matter until 20 July for the continuation of the trial within trial.
The judge had ordered the tria-within-trial on 11 May after defence lawyers objected to the admissibility of the statements and video recordings the prosecution sought to tender, arguing that the statements were not made voluntarily.
PREMIUM TIMES also reported that the prosecution had called four witnesses before the defence challenged the voluntariness of the defendants’ statements.
The fourth witness, an army officer identified by the codename AAA for security reasons, has yet to be discharged. The prosecution witness tendered video recordings of the defendants’ interrogations before the trial within trial began.
The prosecution closed its case in the trial-within-trial on 23 June, after which the defendants began their defence on 25 June.
What sixth defendant said
Led in evidence by Mr Musa, Mr Shani insisted that his statements were not made voluntarily.
He told the court that before officers recorded his video statement on 11 December, they took him from the EFCC office, covered his face with a black cloth and placed a black cloth over the face of a young man who had accompanied him.
“They later told the boy he could go. I was left with only them in the vehicle,” he said.
According to him, he was driven to the Defence Intelligence Agency headquarters, where an officer who questioned him first looked through the statement he had made at the EFCC before putting it aside.
The witness said the officer asked whether he knew why he had been brought there before questioning him about Sanda and Colonel Maji.
Prosecution’s case
According to the prosecution, a sergeant, Sanda Usman, is the intermediary who allegedly acted on behalf of the alleged plot’s ringleader, Colonel Mohammed Ma’aji. The prosecution said Mr Sanda approached Mr Sani to pray and provide spiritual support for the alleged coup plot.
Mr Sani testified on Tuesday that he had known Mr Sanda for about 10 years because he often came to him for prayers. When asked about Colonel Maji, the witness said he repeatedly denied knowing him.
“I swear, I swear, I swear, I have never known Colonel Maji,” he told the court.
According to him, the interrogating officer immediately accused him of lying. “He shouted at me. He told me I was lying,” the witness said.
He said the accusation deeply affected him. “I preach to about 500 people and nobody has ever said that I am lying,” he said, adding that his voice changed because he became upset.
He told the court that the officers believed he was crying, but he insisted otherwise.
According to him, the officer offered him water, but he declined because he was fasting. Mr Sani further testified that about a few minutes later, after he had been taken to another room, a man who spoke Hausa entered and spoke with him privately.
According to him, the man told him that if he continued denying knowledge of Colonel Ma’aji, “there is a possibility that they might embarrass” him. The witness said he maintained that he did not know Colonel Ma’aji.
“Why will I say something I don’t know?” he recalled telling them. He said he was later taken back to the interrogation room, where questioning resumed.
According to him, he eventually admitted knowing Colonel Ma’aji after the continued pressure. He explained that he knew him because the officer had once come to him for prayers.
At that point, prosecution lawyer Rotimi Oyedepo, a Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN), objected. He argued that the witness had gone beyond explaining the circumstances under which the statement was obtained and had begun giving evidence about the contents of the statement.
READ ALSO: Court orders forfeiture of jailed ex-minister Saleh Mamman’s Abuja, Kaduna properties
But Mr Sani’s lawyer Mr Musa opposed the objection. He argued that the court had already ordered a trial within trial to determine whether the statement was made voluntarily. He submitted that if the prosecution had any issue with the evidence, it should address it in its final written address rather than interrupt the proceedings.
Judge Abdulmalik upheld the objection in part. She observed that although she understood the witness was providing background, the court was concerned only with the circumstances surrounding the making of the statement.
She directed the defence to restrict its questions to the circumstances leading to the making of the statement.
As the proceedings continued, the disagreements over the interpretation of the witness’ testimony eventually prompted the judge to adjourn the trial-within-trial until 20 July for the parties to produce a neutral interpreter from the witness’ exact linguistic background.
