The first Prosecution Witness (PW-1) in the trial-witin-trial on Tuesday told a Federal High Court that suspects gave their confessional statements in the video recordings voluntarily.
The PW-1 gave his testimony while being led in evidence by the Federal Government’s lawyer, Rotimi Oyedepo, SAN, before Justice Joyce Abdulmalik of the Federal High Court in Abuja.
Justice Abdulmalik on Monday ordered a trial-within-trial following the defence lawyers’ objection to prosecution’s application to tender the video recodings as evidence.
They argued that their clients made the statements during the interview sessions under duress.
At the commencement of proceedings, the trial judge cautioned parties to restrict themselves to issues relating to voluntariness of the statements and avoid delving into substantive matters already pending in the main trial.
Mr Oyedepo, who is also the Director, Public Prosecution for the Federation, informed the court that he had three witnesses lined up for the trial-within-trial.
The lawyer then called the PW-1, an officer of the Nigerian Army Corps of Military Police, who testified as the PW-4 in the main trial, to give his evidence.
Led in evidence, the witness told the court that the defendants were calm, unagitated and fully aware of their constitutional rights before making their statements.
He maintained that the investigation process complied with standard operating procedures and best investigative practices as stipulated by the Administration of Criminal Justice Act (ACJA), 2015.
MrOyedepo, thereafter, tendered the statements of the six defendants allegedly obtained by the Special Investigative Panel (SIP) and the Military Police.
Justice Abdulmalik admitted the 1st to 5th defendant’s statements as Exhibits A to E, while that of the 6th defendant was admitted as Exhibit F.
The prosecution also tendered a black external hard drive and a flash drive said to contain video recordings of the defendants’ extra-judicial statements, alongside certificates of identification.
Defence lawyers did not raise objections to their admissibility during the trial-within-trial and the court admitted the devices as Exhibits G, G1, H and H1.
Testifying, the witness insisted that no defendant was denied access to legal representation and that all the suspects were informed of their rights, including the right to remain silent and the right to engage counsel of their choice.
Speaking specifically on the 1st defendant, Maj-Gen. Mohammed Ibrahim Gana (rtd.), the witness described him as a highly respected senior military officer who remained calm throughout the interrogation process.
According to him, the defendant was placed in a properly ventilated room, cautioned about his rights and informed that any statement made could later be tendered in court as his own side of the story.
The witness further told the court that the video recordings showed no sign of coercion, intimidation or inducement and argued that the similarity between the oral and written statements reinforced the claim that they were voluntarily made.
On allegations that the written statements did not correspond exactly with the recorded interviews, the witness explained that written accounts could not be word-for-word reproductions of oral interviews because “human beings are not computers.”
He also maintained that the military investigation team employed modern investigative techniques and had no reason to force suspects into making statements.
The PW-1, who testified under protection, gave similar testimony regarding the 2nd defendant, identified as Capt. (NN) Erasmus Ochegobia Victor (rtd.).
He stated that the senior military officer voluntarily elected to reduce his oral statement into writing after speaking in the recorded interview.
He denied allegations that the defendant was coerced into pleading for clemency and insisted that all statements were made freely in the interest of justice.
Regarding the 3rd defendant, identified as Inspector of the Nigeria Police Force, the witness dismissed claims of torture and coercion
He stated that the video recordings showed the defendant in a calm and relaxed posture throughout the interview process.
He also rejected suggestions that the defendant may have been restrained outside the camera frame, arguing that the duration and nature of the video showed no sign of tension or force.
