The Federal High Court in Abuja has granted an application by the Federal Government to shield a prosecution witness in the ongoing trial of six defendants accused of plotting a coup against President Bola Tinubu.

Justice Joyce Abdulmalik gave the order on Wednesday after the prosecution argued that the witness, a serving security officer, faced serious safety risks if his identity was disclosed during proceedings.

The case involves a 13-count charge bordering on treason, terrorism, failure to disclose information, and money laundering. The defendants include a retired Major General, Mohammed Ibrahim Gana; a retired Navy Captain, Erasmus Ochegobia Victor; a police inspector, Ahmed Ibrahim; an electrician at the Presidential Villa, Zekeri Umoru; Bukar Kashim Goni; and a cleric, Abdulkadir Sani.

All six defendants had earlier pleaded not guilty.

At Wednesday’s sitting, the prosecution said it was ready to open its case with four witnesses in attendance. Three bank officials from Jaiz Bank, SunTrust Bank, and Providus Bank testified and tendered documents obtained from the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission, which were admitted into evidence.

The controversy arose when the fourth witness was called, prompting the prosecution to apply for protective measures under Section 232 of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act, citing security concerns linked to terrorism-related allegations.

Prosecution counsel Rotimi Oyedepo argued that revealing the witness’s identity could expose the officer to danger, and asked the court to allow full anonymity.

While the defence teams did not oppose protective measures in principle, they objected to complete anonymity, arguing that shielding the witness’s identity would undermine the defendants’ constitutional right to fair hearing and effective cross-examination.

They maintained that while public protection may be justified, the identity of a witness must still be known to the defence to test credibility.

Delivering her ruling, Justice Abdulmalik held that the prosecution had provided sufficient grounds for protection, especially given the nature of the charges.

She ruled that the witness’s identity should be fully concealed, including exclusion of the name from court records accessible to the parties or the public, relying on Section 232(2) of the ACJA.

Following the ruling, court proceedings were briefly paused to allow officials to set up a protective screen before the witness began testimony.

The trial is expected to continue with further prosecution evidence in the coming sessions.