Alleged coup: Court grants FG’s plea for witness’ protection as 3 bankers testified

The Federal High Court in Abuja on Wednesday granted an application by the Federal Government to shield the name and identity of its witness from the Nigerian Army in the ongoing trial of the six suspected coup plotters.

Justice Joyce Abdulmalik granted the application after taking arguments from counsel for the prosecution, Rotimi Oyedepo, SAN, and the defence lawyers.

The News Agency of Nigeria (NAN) reports that the Federal Government had filed a 13-count charge, marked: FHC/ABJ/CR/206/2026, against the defendants.

The suspects are retired Maj-Gen. Mohammed Ibrahim Gana, retired Capt. (NN) Erasmus Ochegobia Victor , Insp Ahmed Ibrahim, Zekeri Umoru, Bukar Kashim Goni and Abdulkadir Sani, listed as 1st to 6th defendants respectively.

Although the former Minister of State for Petroleum Resources, Timipre Sylva, is not named as a defendant in the charge, he is listed as being at large.

The defendants were accused of alleged treason and terrorism, including failure to disclose security intelligence and money laundering linked to terrorism financing, among other charges.

The defendants, who were arraigned on April 22, pleaded not guilty to all the counts.

When the case was called for the commencement of trial on Wednesday, Oyedepo told the court that four witnesses were present and the prosecution was ready to proceed.

Three witnesses from Jaiz Bank, SunTrust Bank and Providus Bank gave their evidence.

They tendered letters obtained from the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC), through the prosecution lawyer.

Justice Abdulmalik admitted the letters in evidence, marked them as exhibits and the witnesses responded to questions under cross-examination by defence lawyers.

However, when the fourth witness was called, Oyedepo applied that the identity of the witness be protected.

He said the witness should be shielded to prevent “unnecessary attack” and protect the officer’s identity, citing Section 232 of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act (ACJA), 2015.

He said the provision allows courts to adopt protective measures in appropriate cases, especially in matters involving security and terrorism allegations.

Lawyers to the defendants did not oppose the application.

However, they insisted that the defence must still know the identity of the witness to ensure fair hearing.

They argued that shielding the witness from the public might be justified, but full anonymity from the defence would be prejudicial and would prevent proper testing of credibility.

They added that Section 232 of the ACJA allows protective measures but does not remove the need for basic identification within proceedings.

They urged the court to strike a balance between security concerns and fair trial rights.

They, however, said that sensitive parts of the proceedings could be restricted from public access if necessary.

In response, Oyedepo insisted that full protection was necessary.

He said the witness is a serving officer who faces security risks if exposed.

He also said the law allows the use of initials or other non-identifying methods.

Ruling on the application, the judge held that the request was justified, particularly as one of the counts relates to terrorism.

“The law permits protective measures, including non-disclosure of names, addresses and contact details where the court is satisfied that security concerns exist.”

Citing Section 232(2) of the ACJA, the judge held that existing judicial authority supports such protection in appropriate cases.

Justice Abdulmalik therefore granted the application and ordered that the witness’s identity be shielded.

She further directed that the name must not appear in court records or proceedings accessible to parties or the public.

The judge then stood down the matter to allow the protective screen to be set up before the witness testified.