Court Orders Day-to-Day Trial in UN Bombing Case

Justice Emeka Nwite of a Federal High Court, Abuja, on Monday granted an application for day-to-day hearing in the ongoing trial over the 2011 bombing of the United Nations building in Abuja, while continuing the cross-examination of a prosecution witness.

The criminal case is between the Federal Republic of Nigeria and five defendants: Khalid Al-Barnawi, Mohammed Bashir Saleh, Umar Mohammed Bello (aka Datti), Mohammed Salisu and Yakubu Nuhu (aka Bello Maishayi). All the defendants were present in court.

The prosecution team is led by Alex Isinyan with Bello Kazeem, while separate defence counsel represented each of the defendants.

At the resumed hearing, counsel urged the court to fast-track the matter, arguing that terrorism cases require day-to-day proceedings.

Justice Nwite said although he had the discretion to order daily proceedings, “some intervening circumstances may come up that may hinder it.”

He, however, granted the application “as prayed,” subject to such factors.

PW3, a technical officer with the Department of State Services (DSS), was cross-examined extensively on the audio-visual recordings of statements made by the defendants, particularly exhibits marked B1–B20 and Exhibit C.

Under questioning by F. K. Khamagan, counsel to the first defendant, PW3 maintained that he personally recorded the interviews, statements and translations of all five defendants.

“I video recorded the first defendant, his interview, statement and statement translation from Hausa to English language in his entirety as well as other defendants,” he said.

When asked whether his contact with the first defendant was limited strictly to the interview room, the witness responded: “My function… was limited to video recordings in the interview rooms. I cannot speculate on anything outside my scope.”

Defence counsel suggested that events occurring before the defendant was brought into the interview room, including possible torture, would not be reflected in the recordings. The witness replied, “Professionally speaking, I cannot speculate on what was not within my mandate. However, everything that occurred in the interview rooms was audio visually recorded.”

An objection was raised by the prosecution when defence counsel posed a question based on the assumption of torture, but the court allowed the line of questioning within limits.

PW3 told the court that the DSS used portable evidential forensic recorders that comply with the Evidence Act and global standards.

“In a nutshell, the device records on two digitally exact DVDs in real time… and it is not designed to be stopped or paused midway into an interview,” he said, describing the system as tamper-proof.

He explained that two identical original DVDs are produced at the end of each recording. However, he said he could not confirm whether both originals were before the court, as he handed them over to the case officer after each session.

On why other officers in the interview room were not visible in the recordings, the witness said it was in line with DSS standard operating procedures.

“No other officer of the SSS is expected to be visible within the recordings except the defendants… this is part of personal security,” he said, adding that while faces were not shown, voices were recorded and, at times, hands could be seen inadvertently.

Asked whether lawyers or family members of the first defendant were present during the recording of statements, the witness reiterated that his mandate was limited to recording official interactions.

“The interpretation of the scenario, I defer to this honourable court,” he said when asked whether the recordings were intended to prove voluntariness of statements.

During cross-examination by counsel to the second defendant, PW3 denied noticing any “skipping” in Exhibit C, which contained the second defendant’s recorded interview.

“On the order of the court… we played and watched the DVDs in their entirety… and at no point… was such raised,” he said.

He confirmed that the second defendant was administered words of caution and informed of his rights, including access to legal counsel.

“Defendants were accorded their rights including providing water and other refreshments during interviews and statements taken so as not to put them under duress,” he added.

When asked whether he was present when the second defendant left the cell to make a statement, the witness clarified: “I was in the interview room,” maintaining that his assignment was limited to official interactions recorded there.

On whether the defendant was in chains throughout Exhibit C, the witness said he could not recollect the specifics but insisted that no concerns of “torture, coercion, inducement, duress or otherwise” were observed during the sessions played in court.

Following further objections and clarifications, Justice Nwite adjourned the case to March 4, 2026, for continuation of trial-within-trial proceedings involving PW3.