Alleged Coup Trial: Court Grants FG Plea For Witness Protection
A Federal High Court in Abuja has ordered that the identity of a key prosecution witness in the ongoing trial of six suspected coup plotters be concealed from both the public and court records, following an application by the Federal Government.
Justice Joyce Abdulmalik granted the order on Wednesday after hearing arguments from the prosecution and defence lawyers in the case involving a 13-count charge marked FHC/ABJ/CR/206/2026.
The six defendants are retired Major General Mohammed Ibrahim Gana, retired Captain Erasmus Ochegobia Victor, Inspector Ahmed Ibrahim, Zekeri Umoru, Bukar Kashim Goni and Abdulkadir Sani. They are standing trial on charges bordering on treason, terrorism, failure to disclose security intelligence and money laundering linked to terrorism financing. They were arraigned on April 22 and all pleaded not guilty. Former Minister of State for Petroleum Resources, Timipre Sylva, is listed as being at large in connection with the same charge.
When the matter came up on Wednesday for the commencement of trial, three bank witnesses from Jaiz Bank, SunTrust Bank and Providus Bank gave evidence and tendered documents obtained through the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission. The documents were admitted in evidence and the witnesses faced cross-examination by defence lawyers.
When a fourth witness was called, prosecution counsel Rotimi Oyedepo, SAN, applied for protective measures, arguing that the witness was a serving military officer whose exposure could put his safety at risk. He cited Section 232 of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act, 2015, which empowers courts to adopt protective measures in terrorism-related proceedings.
Defence lawyers did not oppose the application outright but raised concerns about fair hearing. They argued that while shielding the witness from public view was acceptable, full anonymity from the defence team would hamper their ability to test the witness’s credibility and ensure a fair trial. They urged the court to balance security considerations against the defendants’ constitutional rights.
Advertisement
Justice Abdulmalik sided with the prosecution. She held that the terrorism-related nature of one of the counts justified the protective order and that the law permits the non-disclosure of a witness’s name, address and contact details where genuine security concerns exist.
She directed that the witness’s identity must not appear in any court records or proceedings accessible to the parties or the public, and adjourned briefly to allow a protective screen to be set up before the witness took the stand.