A Federal High Court sitting in Abuja on Monday, March 2, 2026, acceded to the invocation of the practice for accelerated hearing made by the Department of State Services (DSS), in the ongoing prosecution of five men accused of being behind the August 26, 2011, bombing of the United Nations’ building in Abuja.
Justice Emeka Nwite ruled on an application to that effect moved by prosecuting lawyer, Alex Izinyon, SAN, who invoked the practice as directed in 2022 by the Chief Judge of the Federal High Court, Justice John Tsoho.
Izinyon had said that the case has been in court for about 10 years, thus prayed the court for expeditious hearing in line with the court’s practice on the prosecution of terrorism and related cases.
The prosecution counsel 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.
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).
The legal counsel to the defendants did not object to Izinyon’s application, following which Justice Nwite granted it.
During proceedings, a prosecution witness, who is a senior operative of the Department of State Services (DSS) told the court that the Service was always professional in all its investigations.
The prosecution witness 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 lawyer to the second defendant, Bala Dakum, said he couldn’t recollect the specifics of all that are contained in a video recording of one of the interview session with the second defendant, which was admitted in evidence as Exhibit C.
The witness, who said he is 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 further said that potable evidential forensic recorders being used by the DSS complies with the Evidence Act and global standards.
According to the witness; “I am unable to recollect the exact date. However, the interactions, the interviews of the five defendants occurred between 2016 and 2017”.
The witness faulted Dakum’s claim that there are several skipping 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 on 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.
He said; “My duty did not include asking questions or interfering in the process whatsoever. Accordingly, the chief interviewer should be able to address that question”.
The witness further said 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 purpose.
He further said; “The standard operating procedure of the SSS provides for protection in the interest of the personal security for the interviewers. However, in doing that, interviews often require exchanges, giving papers or pens for the purpose of recording of statements, body part of interviewers may inadvertently become visible.
“In the interest of integrity, even such exposure cannot be withheld or tampered with or edited as the recording device is designed to be tamper proof.”.
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 are always submitted to the court.
He added; “However, where there are concerns bordering on security as a result of inadvertent exposure, such concerns are left for the determination of the court”.
While being cross-examined by the 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, thus faulted the claim by Kamaga that the recording device could be edited or paused in the course of recording a session.
According to him; “This is so that the recorder has been used even outside this country. The forensic recorder is designed to be tamper-proof, 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 DVD in real time, as it is happening and it not is designed to be paused or stopped midway into interview. Those are part of the security features of the equipment,” he said.
Further hearing in the case resumes on March 4.
