The Federal High Court in Abuja on Tuesday ordered an investigation into the alleged leakage of a video recording linked to the ongoing trial of six suspects accused of plotting to overthrow President Bola Tinubu’s administration.
Justice Joyce Abdulmalik gave the directive following complaints by the Director of Public Prosecution of the Federation (DPP), Rotimi Oyedepo (SAN), that a video recording of one of the defendants’ statements had surfaced on social media despite an earlier court order restricting its circulation.
Oyedepo told the court that he saw the video on the social media page of influencer Martins Vincent Otse, popularly known as VeryDarkMan, describing the development as a national security concern.
“We tendered the video recording and served it on the defence. I know I served my colleagues,” he said.
The senior advocate argued that the leak was prejudicial to the proceedings and noted that the video had garnered more than 6,000 online views.
“What I saw yesterday is quite disturbing. I urge your lordship to investigate this video and confirm whether it is the same video before the court and whether it contravenes your lordship’s order,” Oyedepo said.
He also informed the court that VeryDarkMan was present in court and could potentially explain how the video got into the public domain.
Counsel to the defendants denied any knowledge of how the video appeared on social media and expressed support for an investigation.
“Our worry is that this is coming at the stage when we are trying to move our bail application. I am not even a social media person. I am not opposed to an investigation,” counsel to the first defendant, Mohammed Ndayako (SAN), said.
While some defence lawyers suggested that members of the media covering the trial should also be investigated, counsel to the sixth defendant, Sanusi Musa (SAN), opposed the proposal for a probe.
He said, “I am surprised that the DPP said the court should investigate this matter. Secondly, who are the suspects? The video might have been leaked from the court, it might be me, it might even be the DPP or from the Ministry of Justice.
“Whatever the DPP said here cannot be acted upon without evidence. If he wants that, he should file an application.”
Ruling on the issue, Justice Abdulmalik cited provisions of Section 232(5) of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act, 2015, relating to the protection of vulnerable witnesses and compliance with court orders.
The judge subsequently directed the Department of State Services (DSS) to investigate any evidence on social media that may have breached the court’s earlier orders.
She ordered the DSS to identify and bring any culprit before the court, adding that any resulting prosecution would be treated as a separate matter from the ongoing trial.
Earlier, the court heard testimony from a prosecution witness identified only by the codename DDD, an officer of the Nigerian Army who participated in the investigation of the alleged coup plot.
NAIJAONPOINT rejected allegations that the defendants were tortured or coerced into making statements.
“The allegations of torture were unfounded because the investigation process did not involve torture or any form of inducement,” he told the court.
DDD said the statements were obtained in a well-ventilated and air-conditioned interview room and that all defendants were informed that their statements could be used in court.
He also denied allegations that any of the suspects were chained or threatened during the interrogation process.
During cross-examination, defence lawyers questioned the absence of legal practitioners and family members during the interrogation of the suspects.
NAIJAONPOINT , however, maintained that none of the defendants requested legal representation or the presence of relatives while making their statements.
He disclosed that the investigation was conducted by a multi-agency team comprising the Nigerian Army, the Department of State Services (DSS), the Defence Intelligence Agency (DIA), the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC), and other security agencies.
Before the leaked video issue arose, the court had entertained bail applications filed by the defendants.
Defence lawyers urged the court to grant their clients bail on liberal terms, while Oyedepo opposed the requests.
