A High Court of the Federal Capital Territory in Maitama, Abuja, on Thursday, adjourned till May 19 to decide on the procedure it would adopt for taking the evidence of a former Chief of Administration of the Nigerian Air Force Headquarters, Air Vice Marshall Mohammed Mamu (retd.), who is being prosecuted for alleged bribery charges.
Justice Salisu Garba adjourned the case after the defence lawyer, Mr. Joseph Daudu (SAN), indicated that a special procedure might be necessary for his client to continue his testimony because of its potential risk to national security.
The judge decided to entertain arguments on Daudu’s request after the counsel prosecuting for the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission, Mr. Sylvester Tahir, opposed any plan to adopt a special procedure for taking the defendant’s evidence and insisted that Mamu must continue his testimony in the open court.
Mamu was testifying on Thursday as the first defence witness in his ongoing trial, when he paused to inform the court that the purpose for which a sum of $300,0000, described by the EFCC as proceeds of bribery, was paid to him “can be directly linked with national security.”
The point was restated by the defence lawyer and the judge readily indicated his interest to adopt the necessary measures, including taking the defendant’s evidence in camera if necessary.
Daudu also asked for a stand-down for some minutes to enable him to give a preview of Mamu’s testimony to the prosecuting counsel, so that the lawyer would better appreciate the potential risk to national security in what the defendant was going to say.
But in response, Tahir rejected Daudu’s offer, insisting that the pre-condition for adopting special measures for taking evidence had not been met in the case.
The prosecuting counsel argued that Mamu was neither the President nor a governor of a state, as envisaged under sections190 and 232 of the Evidence Act, in order for his evidence to be accorded such special treatment.
He insisted that the security of the nation was not in issue in the case, adding that the trial must continue in the open court.
He said, “Section 243 of the Evidence Act deals with exclusion of evidence in terms of public interest. Our take is that the issue here is not of national security. As far as we are concerned, the pre-condition for exclusion of evidence has not been met.
“The DW1 (first defence witness – Mamu) is not a minister or a governor. He is not caught by the provision of section 243 of the Evidence Act.”
Source: Punch
