Three suspected members of violent Islamic sect, Boko Haram, on Wednesday, insisted that faces of prosecution witnesses lined up to testify against them before a Federal High Court, Abuja, must not be masked.
Justice Gabriel Kolawole has fixed June 4 to rule on whether or not to grant the Federal Government’s application seeking that its prosecution witnesses’ facial appearances should be masked while testifying.
The accused, who are being prosecuted by the Federal Government for terrorism charges, are an Islamic scholar and a lecturer at the Kogi State University, Dr. Muhammed Yunus, Salami Abdullahi (aka Asta) and Musa Umar.
They were arraigned on eight counts of terrorism charges, part of which are punishable under Section 17 of the Terrorism Prevention Act 2013 (as amended).
Through their counsel, the accused persons on Wednesday opposed the prosecution’s application asking the court to set aside or modify its earlier ruling of April 3, 2014, to allow the shielding of the faces of its witnesses by masking.
The prosecution counsel, Mr. A Ogunsina, had filed the application dated May 2, 2014, arguing on Wednesday that the earlier ruling of the court, granting a protection for the witnesses, was not exhaustive.
The prosecution argued that its witnesses were still afraid to testify, and had declined invitation to enter the witness box because the cubicle directed by the court to shield them, would not fully protect them from the view of others in the court.
But the defence lawyers argued at the Wednesday’s proceedings that allowing the witnesses to mask their facial identity while testifying would deprive the judge of his statutory privilege to assess the witnesses’ credibility from their demeanour in the witness box.
The lawyers said they would also lose the opportunity to do a thorough cross-examination of the witnesses if they were unable to watch the countenance of the witnesses.
Yunus’ lawyer, Mr. Hassan Liman, added that the application amounted to inviting the judge to sit as the appellate court on its earlier ruling.
Liman said, “This application is asking your Lordship to review or set aside your earlier ruling. I submit that your Lordship has lost jurisdiction or power according to Section 6(6) of the 1999 Constitution or any provision of the constitution to set aside a ruling that has been delivered.
“This is inviting your Lordship to review or re-open a matter which only the Court of Appeal has jurisdiction to entertain.”
Counsel for the second accused (Abdulahi), Mr. James Ocholi (SAN), maintained that while the law, including the Terrorism Prevention Act 2013 (as amended), made provision for witness protection, it did not contemplate that a masked witness would testify in an open court.
He urged the court to dismiss the application, arguing that it was predicated on a “slippery ground” which might make the entire proceedings collapse if granted.
Ocholi said, “The application is nothing but a ploy by the prosecution to conceal the identity of the identity of their agents (because their witnesses are their agents) with which they intend to secure conviction against the accused persons at all cost.”
Lawyer for the third accused (Umar’s), Mr. Abdul Mohammed, said the court had become functus officio on the ruling as the only option available to the prosecution was to appeal against the ruling of the court.
He maintained that the application was an abuse of court process, as the identity of the witnesses had been revealed on national television and newspapers.
“The accused denied on the television that they were not terrorists, the but the witnesses said they were. They (the witnesses) told the gallery that the accused persons were terrorist, let them (the witnesses) come and tell the court unmasked.”
But the prosecuting counsel, Ogunsina, in his reply on point of law, said the interest of the prosecution was that while in search of justice in the case, the lives of the witnesses and their family members were protected.
The accused are facing terrorism charges including being in possession of two AK 47 rifles, which they allegedly used in terrorising people in Kogi State.
They were also said to have allegedly attended a meeting convened by the Boko Haram in Ayimgba, Kogi State and recruited people for training as members of the sect.
Source: Punch
February 25, 2013, 07:55:11 AM