NYANYA BOMBINGS: COURT OKAYS SECRET TRIAL OF OGWUCHE, OTHERS

A Federal High Court in Abuja on Monday ordered that prosecution witnesses in the trial of the alleged mastermind of Nyanya bombing, Aminu Sadiq Ogwuche and others to be completely shielded from public view.
The order of court followed an application by the prosecution counsel, Mohammed Diri, that the identity of prosecution witnesses be shielded with tinted screen to protect their identity.
With Monday's ruling, the Federal Government is expected to open its case on Tuesday.
Aminu Sadiq Ogwuche, Ahmed Abubakar, Mohammed Ishaq, Ya’u Saidu (alias Kofar Rama); Anas Isa, Adamu Yusuf and Nasir Abubakar are facing terrorism charges and the prosecution team was to call their witnesses.
At the resumed trial on Monday, a representative of the prosecution moved a motion seeking to modify the order of the court made on March 18, 2015.
The trial judge, Justice Ahmed Ramat Mohammed, in his ruling ordered the use of tinted screens to shield the prosecution witnesses to protect them from public view but to allow only the lead counsel to the accused persons access to view the facial identities of the prosecution witnesses.
The court further granted the request of the prosecution that prosecution witnesses use protected access to the court room, through a non public route.
In a five-paragraph affidavit in support of the motion, the deponent stated that failure to grant it will affect the witnesses' willingness to sacrifice and give evidence for fear of their lives.
Prosecution specifically told court that the witnesses are currently engaged in field operations in the North East against the Boko Haram insurgency, adding the application was at the behest of the witnesses who complained of their personal security and that of their families.
However, the defence counsel, Ahmed Raji (SAN), and five other counsel opposed the motion and urged the court not to grant it.
Raji, who is counsel to Ogwuche and Ahmed Abubakar, faulted the motion on the grounds that it did not meet the requirements of Section 115 of the Evidence Act 2010.
He further submitted that the motion, by seeking to limit counsel appearance for the accused persons to only the lead counsel, was an unwarranted infringement to the constitutional rights of the accused persons to their rights to counsel of their choice.
Raji argued that bringing the motion under Civil Procedure rules renders it incompetent as criminal trials are not regulated by civil procedure rules.
But in his ruling, Justice Mohammed allowed the application on the grounds that it has merit and did not render the court pontius officio as the use of screen shield was not captured in his earlier ruling.
Source: Tribune