Crime Watch: UN Building Bombing: Court Grants DSS’ Request For Accelerated Hearing
The case was adjourned to March 4 for the continuation of the trial.
Justice Emeka Nwite of the Federal High Court, 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 Abuja.
READ ALSO: UN Bombing: Court Commences Trial-Within-Trial On Terrorism Suspects’ Statements
Justice Nwite issued the order while ruling on an application moved by the Prosecuting Counsel, Alex Izinyon (SAN), who noted that the case has dragged on 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 noted that the case had been in court for about nine years and prayed the court for an expeditious hearing in line with the court’s practice direction on the prosecution of terrorism and related cases.
He said it was in the interest of all parties that the case be promptly determined by allowing the conduct of proceedings on a daily basis, where possible.
Counsel to the defendants did not object to Izinyon’s application, following which Justice Nwite granted it.
DSS Operative Testifies
At the resumed hearing of the trial, a prosecution witness, a senior operative of the DSS, told the court that the security agency was always professional in its investigations.
He made the assertion 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 the lawyer to the second defendant, Bala Dakum, said he could not recollect the specifics of all that were contained in a video recording of one of the interview sessions with the second defendant, which was admitted in evidence as Exhibit C.
The witness, who said he was 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, explained that portable evidential forensic recorders being used by the DSS complied with the Evidence Act and global standards.
Claims Over Recording
The witness faulted Dakum’s claim that there were several skips in the recording of the statements of the second defendant, Exhibit C, in particular.
On the lawyer’s claim that the cautionary words were not administered to the second 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.
The witness added that from the video evidence, he observed that the second 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 that 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 second 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.
“The standard operating procedure of the SSS provides for protection in the interest of the personal security for the interviewers,” the witness added.
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 is always submitted to the court.
“However, where there are concerns bordering on security as a result of inadvertent exposure, such concerns are left for the determination of the court,” the witness stated.
Earlier, while being cross-examined by a 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 the 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, so 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 DVDs in real time, as it is happening, and it is not designed to be paused or stopped midway into interview. Those are part of the security features of the equipment,” he added.
The case was adjourned to March 4 for the continuation of the trial.
