Justice Emeka Nwite has ordered an accelerated hearing
in a long-running terrorism case that has lingered in court for nearly 15
years.
The directive followed an application by the
prosecuting counsel, Alex Izinyon (SAN), who urged the court to fast-track
proceedings in line with practice directions governing terrorism-related cases.
He noted that the matter had already spent about nine years before the current
court and stressed the need for daily hearings where possible to ensure a
timely conclusion.
Defence lawyers did not oppose the request, prompting
Justice Nwite to grant the application for an expeditious trial.
Defendants in the Dock
The Department of State Services (DSS) is prosecuting
Al-Barnawi — also known by several aliases including Kafuri, Naziru, Alhaji
Yahaya, Mallam Dauda, and Alhaji Tanimu — alongside Mohammed Bashir Saleh, Umar
Mohammed Bello (also known as Datti or Mohammed Salisu), and Yakubu Nuhu (aka
Bello Maishayi).
DSS Operative Testifies
At the resumed hearing, a senior DSS operative
testified as part of a trial-within-trial to determine whether the defendants’
statements were made voluntarily.
The witness, identified as PW3, described the DSS as
professional in its investigations. Under cross-examination by Bala Dakum,
counsel to the second defendant, the witness said he could not recall specific
details of a video-recorded interview session admitted as Exhibit C, including
the exact month and year it was recorded.
However, he maintained that the portable forensic
recording devices used by the DSS comply with the Evidence Act and
international standards. The operative, a computer forensic expert in the DSS
technical department, stated that he recorded interview and translation
sessions involving all five defendants.
Dispute Over Video Recording
The defence alleged that Exhibit C contained multiple
skips and that cautionary words were not administered before the second
defendant made his statement. The witness rejected these claims, explaining
that his role was strictly to record proceedings.
He told the court that, based on the video evidence,
the second defendant was duly cautioned, informed of his rights — including the
option to decline the interview or request legal counsel — and voluntarily
chose to proceed.
Responding to claims that parts of the interview were
not captured on video, the witness insisted that every official interaction
between investigators and defendants was recorded.
He further explained that it is standard DSS procedure
not to show the faces of interviewers in recordings for security reasons. “The
standard operating procedure provides for protection in the interest of the
personal security of interviewers,” he said.
On whether recordings are edited if an interviewer’s
face is accidentally shown, the witness stated that all sessions are submitted
to the court, while any security concerns are left for judicial determination.
Tamper-Proof Recording Device
During earlier cross-examination by F. K. Kamaga,
counsel to the first defendant, the witness dismissed suggestions that the
recording device could be paused or edited.
He explained that the forensic recorder is designed to
be tamper-proof, automatically closing and digitally signing files if
interrupted, making further alterations impossible.
“In a nutshell, the device records on two digitally
exact DVDs in real time and is not designed to be paused or stopped midway into
an interview. Those are part of its security features,” he said.
The case has been adjourned to March 4 for the
continuation of the trial.
Comments:
Leave a Reply