The trial within trial in the 2011 United Nations building bombing case continued on Thursday before Justice Emeka Nwite of the Federal High Court, Abuja, with a Department of State Services operative admitting under cross-examination that suspects were interrogated without the presence of legal representatives or relatives.

The witness, identified only as PW4 with the names ABZ1A, ABZ1B and  currently under protection, told the court that although he participated in the interview process and translated statements from Hausa to English, no lawyer or family member of the first defendant was present during the sessions.

“The first defendant had no lawyer in the interview room,” the witness confirmed, adding, however, that “the sessions were audiovisually recorded.”

PW4, a civil servant with the DSS headquarters in Abuja, was testifying in a trial within trial to determine the admissibility of statements allegedly made by the defendants. The defendants in the case are Khalid Al-Barnawi, Mohammed Bashir Saleh, Umar Mohammed Bello, Mohammed Salisu and Yakubu Nuhu.

Led in evidence, the witness adopted his statement on oath dated January 9, 2026, urging the court to admit it as his evidence. He stated that his role in the investigation primarily involved translating statements and ensuring compliance with standard procedures during interviews.

Under cross-examination by counsel to the first defendant, F. K. Khamagan, the witness admitted he did not bring proof of his academic qualifications to court, citing his protected status. He also acknowledged that he did not translate the defendant’s statements immediately after they were made.

“It depends on when the chief investigating officer directs me,” he said. “I was involved in so many assignments.”

He further revealed that there was a time gap between when statements were made and when translations were carried out, though he could not recall exact timelines without reviewing his statement. However, he maintained that he translated the statements in February 2017.

When questioned about the conditions under which the first defendant was brought in for questioning, the witness said he could not recall whether the defendant was restrained with chains and admitted he had no knowledge of how suspects were treated before arriving at the interview room.

“The movement of suspects from the cell to the interview room is the function of suspect handlers,” he explained.

In his testimony, PW4 also clarified that he was part of an interview team led by a superior officer and that his responsibilities included monitoring the lead interviewer and translating statements. He stated that suspects’ statements were not taken during interviews but afterward.

During cross-examination by counsel to the second defendant, the witness confirmed that his role did not include handling suspects and that he was unaware of events preceding the interrogation sessions.

“We only met in the interview room,” he said.

Further questioning by counsel representing the third and fifth defendants challenged the witness’s knowledge of the case and the structure of the investigative team. PW4 admitted he could not recall the number of team members involved in interviewing the defendants but insisted he played his role as part of the team.

“I was only a member of the interview and translation team,” he stated.

On the issue of how statements were obtained from the third and fifth defendants, the witness gave a detailed account. He said the third defendant wrote his statement personally in Hausa, while he recorded the fifth defendant’s statement after the latter indicated he could not write.

“He was narrating it sentence by sentence to me in Hausa language and I wrote it down,” PW4 told the court. “At the end, I read it back to him, and he confirmed it was correct before thumbprinting it.”

The witness added that the statement was subsequently presented to the chief investigating officer, who also confirmed its authenticity with the defendant before signing.

However, a contradiction emerged when defence counsel referenced earlier testimony by another prosecution witness, who claimed he was instructed to obtain the fifth defendant’s statement on a different date. Asked to clarify the discrepancy, PW4 maintained his position.

“What I did was record the statement as he narrated it,” he said, insisting that his handwriting and signature were on the document.

Despite intense questioning suggesting he lacked sufficient knowledge of the case, the witness stood his ground.

“I know a lot about this case. That is why I swore to my statement,” he said.

Following the conclusion of cross-examinations for lack of time, the court adjourned proceedings to April 20, 2026, for continuation of the trial within trial.