The Federal High Court in Abuja on Monday granted an application by the Department of State Services for accelerated hearing in the trial of five men accused of involvement in the August 26, 2011 bombing of the United Nations building in Abuja.
Justice Emeka Nwite granted the request after it was moved by prosecuting counsel, Alex Izinyon (SAN), who told the court that the matter had lingered for years.
He noted that the case had been in court for about nine years and urged the court to allow day-to-day hearing in line with the practice directions on terrorism and related cases.
Izinyon argued that it was in the interest of all parties for the case to be expeditiously determined.
Counsel to the defendants did not oppose the application, following which the court granted it.
The first defendant, Al-Barnawi, also known as Kafuri, Naziru, Alhaji Yahaya, Mallam Dauda and Alhaji Tanimu, is being prosecuted alongside Mohammed Bashir Saleh; Umar Mohammed Bello, also known as Datti and Mohammed Salisu; and Yakubu Nuhu, also known as Bello Maishayi.
During proceedings, a prosecution witness, identified as PW3, told the court that the DSS conducted its investigations professionally.
The witness, a senior operative in the DSS Technical Department and a computer forensic expert, testified in a trial-within-trial to determine whether the defendants’ statements were made voluntarily.
Under cross-examination by Bala Dakum, counsel to the second defendant, the witness said he could not recollect the specific details contained in a video recording of one of the interview sessions with the second defendant, which was admitted as Exhibit C.
He, however, maintained that the recording equipment used by the DSS complied with the Evidence Act and global standards.
“I am unable to recollect the exact date. However, the interactions, the interviews of the five defendants occurred between 2016 and 2017,” he said.
The witness rejected the defence’s claim that there were several gaps in Exhibit C, particularly in the recording of the second defendant’s statement.
He also dismissed the suggestion that cautionary words were not administered before the statement was taken.
According to him, his role was limited to recording the interaction between the defendants and the interviewers.
“My duty did not include asking questions or interfering in the process whatsoever. Accordingly, the chief interviewer should be able to address that question,” he said.
He added that from the video evidence, the second defendant was administered cautionary words and informed of his right to volunteer or decline to make a statement, as well as his right to legal counsel, but chose to proceed with the interview.
On the allegation that not all that transpired in the interview room was captured on video, the witness said every official interaction between the interviewers and the defendants was duly recorded.
He explained that it was standard practice not to capture the faces of interviewers for security reasons.
“The standard operating procedure of the SSS provides for protection in the interest of the personal security of the interviewers,” he said, adding that where any part of an interviewer was inadvertently captured, such exposure could not be edited or tampered with because the recording device was tamper-proof.
He further stated that all official recordings were submitted to the court, while any security concerns arising from inadvertent exposure were left to the court’s determination.
Earlier, under cross-examination by counsel to the first defendant, F.K. Kamaga, the witness gave details of how he audio-visually recorded the interviews, statements and translation sessions involving the five defendants.
He faulted claims that the recording device could be edited or paused during sessions.
He said the forensic recorder, which had been used outside Nigeria, was designed to be tamper-proof and automatically triggered a digital closure if paused, preventing any addition to the recording.
“In a nutshell, the device records on two digitally exact DVDs in real time, as it is happening, and it is not designed to be paused or stopped midway into an interview. Those are part of the security features of the equipment,” he said.
Justice Nwite adjourned further hearing till March 4.