The Federal High Court on Monday, granted an application by the Department of State Services (DSS) for accelerated hearing in the ongoing prosecution of five men accused of the Aug. 26, 2011, bombing of the United Nations’ Building in Abuja.
Justice Emeka Nwite granted the order while ruling on an application moved by prosecuting lawyer, Alex Izinyon, SAN, who noted that the case had dragged for nearly 15 years.
Al- Barnawi, also known variously as Kafuri/ Naziru/Alhaji Yahaya/Mallam Dauda/Alhaji Tanimu, is being prosecuted by the DSS along with Mohammed Bashir Saleh; Umar Mohammed Bello (aka Datti; Mohammed Salisu) and Yakubu Nuhu (aka Bello Maishayi).
Izinyon had stated that the case had been in court for about nine years and prayed the court for expeditious hearing in line with the court’s practice direction on the prosecution of terrorism and related cases
He said it is in the interest of all parties that the case be promptly determined by allowing the conduct of proceedings on a daily basis, where possible.
Lawyers to the defendants did not object to Izinyon’s application, following which Justice Nwite granted it.
During proceedings, ane prosecution witness, a senior operative of DSS, told the court that the Service was always professional in its investigations.
He stated this while testifying in the trial-within-trial.
The trial-within-trial was being conducted to ascertain whether or not the defendants offered their statements voluntarily.
The witness, identified as PW3, who spoke while being cross-examined by lawyer to second defendant, Bala Dakum, said he couldn’t recollect the specifics of all that are contained in a video recording of one of the interview session with the 2nd defendant, which was admitted in evidence as “Exhibit C.”
The witness, who said he is a computer forensic expert and works in DSS’ Technical Department, told the court that he recorded the interview sessions with the five defendants, but could no longer recall the exact month and year that “Exhibit C” was recorded.
He, however stressed that potable evidential forensic recorders being used by the DSS complies with the Evidence Act and global standards.
He said: “I am unable to recollect the exact date. However, the interactions, the interviews of the five defendants occured between 2016 and 2017.”
The witness faulted Dakum’s claim that there are several skipping in the recording of the statements of the 2nd defendant, Exhibit C, in particular.
On the lawyer’s claim that the cautionary words were not administered on the 2nd defendant before he made his statements, the witness said his role, as the technical officer, was limited to recording everything that transpired between the defendant and the interviewers.
“My duty did not include asking questions or interfering in the process whatsoever. Accordingly, the chief interviewer should be able to address that question,” he said.
The witness added that from the video evidence, he observed that the 2nd defendant was administered the cautionary words and given all the options to volunteer or decline as well as access to legal counsel, but he voluntarily elected to continue with the interview.
On the lawyer’s suggestion that not all the transpired in the interview room was captured in the video, the witness said: “Every official interaction between the interviewers and defendants was duly recorded.”
On why it was only the face of the 2nd defendant that was shown in the video, the witness said it was the standard practice not to capture the faces of the interviewers for their personal safety purpose.
The witness added: “The standard operating procedure of the SSS (DSS) provides for protection in the interest of the personal security for the interviewers,
“However, in doing that, interviews often require exchanges, giving papers or pens for the purpose of recording of statements, body part of interviewers may inadvertently become visible.
“In the interest of integrity, even such exposure cannot be withheld or tampered with or edited as the recording device is designed to be tamper proof.”
On whether a video in which an interviewer’s face is inadvertently captured is either edited or discarded, the witness said every session of official interactions between the defendants and the interviewers are always submitted to the court.
He added: “However, where there are concerns bordering on security as a result of inadvertent exposure, such concerns are left for the determination of the court.”
Earlier while being cross-examined by lawyer to the first defendant, F. K. Kamaga, the witness gave details of how he audio-visually recorded the interview, statements taken, and translation sessions with the five defendants.
He faulted claim by Kamaga that the recording device could be edited or paused in the course of recording a session.
“This is so that the recorder has been used even outside this country. The forensic recorder is designed to be tamper proof, that in the event of a pause, it automatically triggers a closure and signs digitally so that nothing can be added to it again.
“In a nutshell, the device records on two digitally exact DVD in real time, as it is happening and it not is designed to be paused or stopped midway into interview.
“Those are part of the security features of the equipment.”
The judge adjourned the matter until Wednesday for hearing.
