A Federal High Court has ordered that prosecution witnesses
in the trial of the alleged mastermind of the Nyanya bombing, Aminu Ogwuche and
others to be completely shielded from public view.
The order of court followed an application by the
prosecution, Mohammed Diri that the identity of the prosecution witnesses be
shielded with tinted screen to protect their identity.
With yesterday’s ruling, the federal government is expected
to open its case Tuesday.
Aminu Sadiq Ogwuche, Ahmed Abubakar, Mohammed Ishaq, Ya’u
Saidu (alias Kofar Rama); Anas Isa, Adamu Yusuf and Nasir Abubakar are facing
terrorism-related charges.
The trial was stalled over disagreement on whether to
totally or partially shield the prosecution witnesses.
At the resumed trial yesterday, a representative of the
prosecution counsel, M. Ogunsina moved an application seeking to modify the
order of the court made on March 18, 2015.
The court further granted the request of the prosecution
that the prosecution witnesses be granted access to the court room through a
non public route.
In a five-paragraph affidavit in support of the motion, the
deponent stated that failure to grant it would affect the witnesses willingness
to sacrifice and give evidence for fear of their lives.
The prosecution specifically told the court that the
witnesses were currently engaged in field operations in the North-east against
the Boko Haram insurgency.
In addition, he stated that the application was at the
behest of the witnesses who complained of their personal security and that of
their families.
However, the defence counsel Ahmed Raji (SAN), and five
other counsel vehemently opposed the motion and urged the court not to grant
it.
Raji, who is counsel to Ogwuche and Ahmed Abubakar, faulted
the motion on the grounds that it did not meet the requirements of section 115
of the Evidence Act 2010.
He further submitted that the motion, by seeking to limit counsel
appearance for the accused persons to only the lead counsel, was an unwarranted
infringement to the constitutional rights of the accused persons to their
rights to counsel of their choice.
Raji argued that bringing the motion under Civil Procedure
rules rendered it incompetent as criminal trials were not regulated by civil
procedure rules.
But in his ruling, Justice Mohammed allowed the application
on the grounds that it had merit and did not render the court functius officio
as the use of screen shield was not captured in his earlier ruling.
Hearing on the matter continues today
No comments:
Post a Comment