The first prosecution witness in the trial-within-trial in the ongoing trial of six persons allegedly involved in the plotting of a coup against President Bola Tinubu’s government, on Tuesday, told a Federal High Court, Abuja Division, that the suspects gave their confessional statements in the video recordings voluntarily.
The witness gave his testimony while being led in evidence by the federal government’s lawyer, Rotimi Oyedepo, SAN, before Justice Joyce Abdulmalik of the Federal High Court, Abuja.
Justice Abdulmalik on Monday ordered a trial-within-trial following the defence lawyers’ objection to the prosecution’s application to tender the video recordings as evidence.
They argued that their clients made the statements during the interview sessions under duress.
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.
Mr Oyedepo, who is also the director of 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 witness, an officer of the Nigerian Army Corps of Military Police, who testified as the fourth prosecution witness in the main trial.
Led in evidence, 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, allegedly obtained by the Special Investigative Panel (SIP) and the military police.
Justice Abdulmalik admitted the first to 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 about the first defendant, Maj-Gen. Mohammed Ibrahim Gana (rtd.), 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 signs 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 compel suspects to make statements.
The first prosecution witness, who testified under protection, gave similar testimony regarding the second defendant, identified as Capt. (NN) Erasmus Ochegobia Victor (rtd.).
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, identified as 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, relaxed posture throughout the interview.
He also rejected suggestions that the defendant may have been restrained outside the camera frame, arguing that the video’s duration and nature showed no signs of tension or force.
Regarding the fourth defendant, Umoru Zekeri, the witness expressed surprise at allegations of involuntariness and maintained that the defendant freely recounted 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 first prosecution witness explained that an interpreter was provided after the defendant indicated he could neither speak nor write in English fluently.
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.
During cross-examination by defence counsel, the witness admitted that he was not a member of the special investigative panel but stated that he had participated intermittently in the investigation.
He also acknowledged that the video recordings shown in court pertained only to statements made before the military police, not to those taken before the special investigative panel.
Under questioning, 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 from legal practitioners, and that 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 right to legal representation, but none requested lawyers during the interrogation sessions.
He also admitted that some defendants were not shown physically writing their statements in the videos, explaining that oral accounts were later reduced into writing and endorsed by the suspects after being read back to them.
Justice Abdulmalik adjourned the matter until May 13 for continuation of the trial-within-trial.
(NAN)
Discussion about this post