The Federal High Court sitting in Abuja will this Tuesday rule in an application filed by the federal government, seeking a modification of the earlier partial secret trial the court granted for the trial of Dr. Mohammed Yunus, a lecturer at the Kogi State University and two other accused persons for alleged Boko Haram activities.
You would recalled that the court had on April 3, 2014 order for the partial protection of witnesses that are to be presented by the prosecution counsel.
However, at the resumed hearing recently, the prosecution Mr. A. Ogunsina sought a change of the earlier order of the court for a partial protection of the witnesses to a complete protection of the identities of the witnesses.
In a five paragraph affidavit in support of the application dated May 2, 2014, filed and served on the same day, pursuant to Section 6 Sub-section 6 of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria as amended and Order 26 Rule 17 of the Federal High Court procedure Rule, 2009 as well as Section 34 of the Terrorism Prevention Act 2013 as amended, Mr. Ogunsina is praying the court to vacate its earlier order of April 3, 2014, which it granted partial secret trial for the accused persons.
Mr. Ogunsina submitted: “ It is the conviction of the prosecution that it will be neater and better if our order is granted”, he said.
While arguing on the application, counsel to the 1st accused person, Mr. Hassan Liman (SAN), objected the application by Mr. Ogunsina.
Mr. Liman contended “The court has no power under the under Section 6 Sub-section 6 of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria as amended to set aside its earlier decision after final arguments in the matter had been taken”.
He submitted that the court would “operate serious injustice to the accused persons if the application for a total protection of the witnesses by the prosecution is granted”.
Liman further submitted that it is an abuse of court process by inviting the court to re-open a matter which the Supreme Court only has power to review.
Relying on the submissions made by Mr. Liman, Counsels to the 2nd and 3rd accused persons, Chief James Ocholi (SAN) and Mr. Abdul Mohammed, unanimously opposed the application.
They described it as “A ploy by the prosecution to conceal the identities of their agents with which they intent to secure conviction at all cost against the accused persons”.
