Court Orders Accelerated Hearing in 2011 UN Building Bombing Case
A Federal High Court in Abuja has issued an order for accelerated hearing in the ongoing prosecution of five men accused of being behind the August 26, 2011, bombing of the United Nations’ building in the capital city. The court’s decision came after a legal application was filed by prosecuting lawyer Alex Izinyon (SAN), who highlighted that the case has been pending for nearly 15 years.
The defendants, including Al-Barnawi (also known as Kafuri/Naziru/Alhaji Yahaya/Mallam Dauda/Alhaji Tanimu), are being prosecuted alongside Mohammed Bashir Saleh, Umar Mohammed Bello (aka Datti/Mohammed Salisu), and Yakubu Nuhu (aka Bello Maishayi). Izinyon emphasized that the case had been in court for about nine years and urged the court to expedite the proceedings in line with its practice direction on terrorism-related cases.
He argued that it is in the interest of all parties involved for the case to be resolved promptly, suggesting that proceedings should be conducted daily where possible. The lawyers representing the defendants did not object to Izinyon’s application, leading Justice Emeka Nwite to grant the request.
Testimony from Prosecution Witness
During the proceedings, a prosecution witness, a senior operative of the Department of State Services (DSS), testified in the trial-within-trial. This trial-within-trial was aimed at determining whether the defendants’ statements were given voluntarily.
The witness, identified as PW3, spoke while being cross-examined by the lawyer for the second defendant, Bala Dakum. He stated that he could not recall the exact details of a video recording of one of the interview sessions with the second defendant, which was admitted as Exhibit C.
PW3, who works in the DSS’ Technical Department and is a computer forensic expert, explained that he recorded the interviews with the five defendants but could no longer remember the exact month and year when Exhibit C was recorded. However, he confirmed that the interviews took place between 2016 and 2017.
He also addressed claims that there were skips in the recording of the second defendant’s statements. PW3 refuted this, stating that the DSS uses portable evidential forensic recorders that comply with the Evidence Act and global standards.
Addressing Concerns About the Recording
Regarding the lawyer’s claim that the cautionary words were not administered to the second defendant before his statements, PW3 clarified that his role was limited to recording the interactions. He noted that the chief interviewer would be responsible for addressing such concerns.
From the video evidence, PW3 observed that the second defendant was given the cautionary words and provided options to volunteer or decline, as well as access to legal counsel. He emphasized that the defendant chose to continue with the interview voluntarily.
On the issue of whether all interactions in the interview room were captured in the video, PW3 stated that every official interaction between the interviewers and defendants was recorded. He added that it is standard practice not to capture the faces of the interviewers for their personal safety.
PW3 further explained that the Standard Security Service (SSS) protocol includes measures to protect the security of interviewers. However, he noted that body parts of interviewers might inadvertently become visible during recordings. In such cases, the recordings are tamper-proof and cannot be edited or altered.
Equipment and Security Features
When questioned about whether a video showing an interviewer’s face inadvertently captured would be edited or discarded, PW3 confirmed that all official interactions are submitted to the court. He added that any security concerns arising from inadvertent exposure are left for the court to determine.
Earlier, during cross-examination by the lawyer for the first defendant, F.K. Kamaga, PW3 provided details on how he audio-visually recorded the interviews, statements, and translation sessions with the five defendants. He refuted claims that the recording device could be edited or paused during sessions.
According to PW3, the forensic recorder is tamper-proof and designed to automatically trigger a closure and sign digitally if paused. He emphasized that the device records on two digitally exact DVDs in real time and is not designed to be paused or stopped midway through an interview.
These features are part of the equipment’s security protocols, ensuring the integrity of the recordings.
Next Steps in the Case
Further hearings in the case are scheduled to resume on March 4. The court’s decision to accelerate the proceedings underscores the importance of resolving this long-standing case, which has significant implications for justice and national security.
