UN Building Bombing: Court Grants Accelerated Hearing as DSS Pushes for Speedy Trial

A Federal High Court in Abuja has approved an application for accelerated hearing in the ongoing trial of five men accused of masterminding the August 26, 2011 bombing of the United Nations building in Abuja.

Justice Emeka Nwite granted the request on Monday following an application by prosecuting counsel, Alex Izinyon (SAN), who invoked the 2022 Practice Direction on terrorism cases issued by the Chief Judge of the Federal High Court, Justice John Tsoho.

Izinyon told the court that the case had lingered for nearly a decade and urged the court to allow day-to-day proceedings where possible to ensure a prompt conclusion. He argued that expediting the trial was in the interest of justice and all parties involved. Defence counsel did not oppose the application, and the court subsequently granted it.

The Department of State Services (DSS) is prosecuting Al-Barnawi, also known by several aliases including Kafuri, Naziru, Alhaji Yahaya, Mallam Dauda and Alhaji Tanimu.

He is standing trial alongside Mohammed Bashir Saleh; Umar Mohammed Bello (also known as Datti and Mohammed Salisu); and Yakubu Nuhu (aka Bello Maishayi).

During proceedings, a prosecution witness identified as PW3, a senior operative and computer forensic expert in the DSS Technical Department, testified in a trial-within-trial to determine whether the defendants’ statements were made voluntarily.

Under cross-examination by Bala Dakum, counsel to the second defendant, the witness said he could not recall the exact date a video recording admitted as Exhibit C was made. However, he stated that the interviews of the five defendants took place between 2016 and 2017.

He maintained that the DSS employed professional standards in its investigations, stressing that the forensic recording equipment used complies with the Evidence Act and global best practices.

Responding to claims that the video recording contained gaps, the witness denied any tampering, explaining that the device is designed to be tamper-proof.

According to him, the equipment records simultaneously onto two identical DVDs in real time and automatically triggers a digital closure if paused, preventing further editing.

On allegations that the second defendant was not administered cautionary words before making his statement, the witness clarified that his role was strictly technical  to record proceedings  and not to participate in questioning.

Nonetheless, he said the video evidence showed that the defendant was informed of his rights, including the option to decline answering questions and access legal counsel, but chose to proceed voluntarily.

The witness also addressed concerns over why only the defendant’s face appeared in the video recording. He explained that it is standard practice not to capture the faces of interviewers for security reasons.

While body parts of interviewers may inadvertently appear during exchanges, he said such portions cannot be edited out due to the integrity safeguards embedded in the recording device.

He further stated that all official interactions between investigators and defendants are submitted to the court. Where security concerns arise from unintended exposure of personnel, the matter is left to the court’s discretion.

Earlier, under cross-examination by F. K. Kamaga, counsel to the first defendant, the witness reiterated that the recording equipment cannot be paused or manipulated mid-session, dismissing suggestions that it could be altered during interviews.

Justice Nwite adjourned further hearing in the matter to March 4, as the court continues the trial-within-trial proceedings.