ABUJA — A Federal High Court in Abuja heard testimony on Tuesday that the video‑recorded confessional statements of six suspects were given voluntarily, despite defence claims that the statements were extracted under duress. The hearing formed part of a “trial‑within‑trial” ordered by Justice Joyce Abdulmalik on Monday after the defence objected to the admissibility of the recordings.
Federal Government counsel Rotimi Oyedepo, SAN and Director of Public Prosecution for the Federation, led the prosecution’s case. He introduced the first prosecution witness – an officer of the Nigerian Army Corps of Military Police who had previously testified as PW‑4 in the main trial – to address the issue of voluntariness.
According to the witness, the suspects were calm, fully aware of their constitutional rights and were cautioned before each interview. He said the interrogation procedures adhered to the standard operating procedures and best investigative practices prescribed by the Administration of Criminal Justice Act 2015. The witness also affirmed that no suspect was denied access to legal representation and that each was informed of the right to remain silent and to consult counsel of choice.
Justice Abdulmalik admitted the written statements of the first five defendants as Exhibits A to E and the sixth defendant’s statement as Exhibit F. The prosecution also offered a black external hard drive and a flash drive – said to contain the video recordings – together with certificates of identification. The defence raised no objections during the trial‑within‑trial, and the devices were entered into evidence as Exhibits G, G1, H and H1.
The witness described each defendant in turn. He said retired Major‑General Mohammed Ibrahim Gana remained composed throughout his interview, which was conducted in a ventilated room after he was cautioned about his rights. The witness asserted that the video showed no sign of intimidation and that the similarity between the oral and written statements supported their voluntariness. When asked why the written accounts did not match the recordings word for word, he replied that “human beings are not computers” and that paraphrasing was unavoidable.
Similar testimony was given about the second defendant, retired Captain Erasmus Ochegobia Victor, who, the witness said, voluntarily reduced his oral account to writing after the recorded interview. Regarding the third defendant, an inspector of the Nigeria Police Force, the witness dismissed allegations of torture, noting the calm demeanor captured on video and rejecting suggestions that the suspect might have been restrained out of the camera’s view.
For the fourth defendant, Umoru Zekeri, the witness expressed surprise at claims of involuntariness, emphasizing that Zekeri freely narrated events allegedly known only to him. The fifth defendant, Bukar Kashim Goni, was said to have chosen to tell his side of the story after being informed of his rights. The sixth defendant, an Islamic cleric, was interviewed through an interpreter after indicating limited proficiency in English; the statements were translated between Hausa and English and read back for confirmation.
Under cross‑examination, the witness admitted he was not a member of the Special Investigative Panel (SIP) but had participated intermittently in the investigation. He confirmed that the videos shown in court were recorded by the Military Police, not by the SIP, and that some recordings and written statements were made on different dates. Nevertheless, he maintained that the timing did not affect their voluntariness. The witness also acknowledged that no legal practitioners, civil‑society representatives or Justices of the Peace were present during the recordings, although each suspect was informed of his right to counsel and none requested a lawyer at the time.
Justice Abdulmalik adjourned the trial‑within‑trial until 13 May for further hearing. The outcome will determine whether the video recordings and accompanying statements can be admitted as evidence in the main trial, a decision that could have significant implications for the prosecution’s case.
