From Victor Osula, Abuja
The Federal High Court in Abuja has directed the Department of State Services (DSS) to investigate allegations that evidence tendered in the ongoing trial of six men accused of plotting to overthrow the government of President Bola Tinubu was leaked and circulated on social media.
Justice Joyce Abdulmalik issued the directive on Tuesday following concerns raised by the prosecution that some of the documentary and video evidence presented in court had surfaced online despite existing court orders aimed at protecting witnesses and preserving the integrity of the proceedings.
The judge also directed the DSS to identify and prosecute anyone found to have violated the court’s witness protection orders by publishing or disseminating materials related to the case on social media.
Justice Abdulmalik held that the investigation should proceed concurrently with the trial, noting that all six defendants had denied any involvement in the alleged leak.
The issue arose midway into proceedings when counsel to the prosecution, Rotimi Oyedepo, SAN, informed the court that he had received information indicating that some of the videos tendered as evidence had been posted on social media by a popular online personality known as VeryDarkMan.
Oyedepo further told the court that the individual was present among members of the audience observing the proceedings.
The senior advocate urged the court to direct security agencies to investigate how the court exhibits found their way into the public domain and determine who was responsible for the alleged disclosure.
Responding to the allegation, lawyers representing the six defendants distanced themselves and their clients from any involvement in the circulation of the materials.
Some of the defence counsel argued that the prosecution should file a formal application supported by an affidavit to enable them to properly respond to the allegations.
After hearing the submissions of both parties, Justice Abdulmalik ordered the DSS to investigate the matter and determine whether any breach of the court’s directives had occurred.
The development came as the court continued hearing applications for bail filed by the defendants, who are standing trial over their alleged involvement in a plot to topple the Tinubu administration.
While defence lawyers urged the court to grant their clients bail on liberal terms, the prosecution opposed the applications and asked the court to reject them.
The judge subsequently adjourned proceedings to June 25 and June 30 for the first, second, and third defendants to open their defence in the trial-within-trial instituted to determine whether statements made to investigators were obtained voluntarily.
The fourth, fifth, and sixth defendants are scheduled to conduct their defence on July 1 and July 2.
Justice Abdulmalik also fixed July 20 for ruling on the bail applications.
Earlier in the proceedings, the prosecution sought the admission of statements allegedly made by the defendants to investigators, insisting that the confessional statements were voluntarily given and therefore admissible in evidence.
The request was made through the fourth prosecution witness, identified only as “DDD”, who testified in the trial-within-trial designed to determine the volunteering or otherwise of the statements.
Led in evidence by Oyedepo, the witness denied allegations by the defendants that they were tortured, intimidated, or otherwise compelled to make the statements.
According to the witness, none of the defendants was subjected to physical abuse, harassment, or coercion during the interview process. He specifically rejected claims that the defendants’ feet were chained during interrogation sessions.
“It is not true. The feet of the defendants were not chained. They walked into the interview room by themselves,” the witness told the court.
He argued that if the defendants had indeed been chained, the sounds of the restraints would have been audible in the video recordings of the interviews that had earlier been played in court.
The witness also addressed concerns over the absence of legal representatives during the interrogation sessions. According to him, none of the defendants requested the presence of a lawyer, family member, official of the Legal Aid Council, or a Justice of the Peace during questioning.
He therefore urged the court to admit both the written statements and the audio-visual recordings of the interview sessions as evidence in the substantive trial.
Under cross-examination by defence counsel, the witness maintained that the defendants made their statements without the presence of lawyers, relatives, Legal Aid officials, or Justices of the Peace.
However, he insisted that the statements were voluntarily made and were not obtained through torture, threats, or any form of undue pressure.
At the conclusion of the witness’s testimony and subsequent cross-examination, Oyedepo announced the closure of the prosecution’s case in the trial-within-trial after presenting four witnesses.
