Quick Summary:
The Federal High Court in Abuja approves the Federal Government’s application to conceal the identity of a Nigerian Army witness in the ongoing trial of six suspected coup plotters.

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 six suspected coup plotters.

Justice Joyce Abdulmalik granted the request after hearing arguments from prosecution counsel Rotimi Oyedepo, SAN, and defence lawyers.

The Federal Government had filed a 13-count charge, marked FHC/ABJ/CR/206/2026, against the defendants.

Defendants And Charges

The defendants 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 former Minister of State for Petroleum Resources, Timipre Sylva, is not named as a defendant, he is listed as being at large.

The accused persons face allegations of treason, terrorism, failure to disclose security intelligence, and money laundering linked to terrorism financing.

They were arraigned on April 22, 2026, and pleaded not guilty to all charges.

Prosecution Opens Case

When the case resumed for trial, Oyedepo informed the court that four witnesses were present and ready to testify.

Three witnesses from Jaiz Bank, SunTrust Bank, and Providus Bank gave evidence, tendering letters obtained from the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) through the prosecution.

Justice Abdulmalik admitted the documents as exhibits, and the witnesses were cross-examined by defence counsel.

Application For Witness Protection

When the fourth witness was called, Oyedepo applied for the identity of the witness to be protected, citing Section 232 of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act (ACJA), 2015.

He argued that the measure was necessary to prevent attacks and protect the officer’s identity, noting that the law allows protective measures in cases involving security and terrorism.

Defence lawyers did not oppose the application but insisted that the defence must know the witness’s identity to ensure fair hearing.

They argued that while shielding the witness from the public was acceptable, complete anonymity would be prejudicial and hinder proper credibility assessment.

They urged the court to balance security concerns with fair trial rights, suggesting that sensitive parts of the proceedings could be restricted from public access if necessary.

Court’s Ruling

In her ruling, Justice Abdulmalik held that the application was justified, particularly since one of the charges involved terrorism.

Citing Section 232(2) of the ACJA, the judge noted that judicial precedents support such protection in appropriate cases.

The court therefore granted the application and ordered that the witness’s identity be shielded.

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

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