Justice Joyce Abdulmalik gave the order on Tuesday after the prosecution raised concerns that materials presented before the court and served on defence counsel had allegedly appeared online.
The judge further ordered that if any social media publication was found to have violated the court’s earlier witness protection directives, the DSS should identify those responsible and ensure appropriate action is taken against them.
Justice Abdulmalik noted that the investigation should proceed alongside the trial, particularly as all six defendants, through their lawyers, denied any involvement in the alleged leak.
The issue was brought before the court by prosecution counsel, Rotimi Oyedepo, SAN, who informed the judge during proceedings that he had received information that video exhibits tendered in the matter had been posted online by an individual identified as VeryDarkMan.
Oyedepo also told the court that the activist was present among those observing the proceedings and urged the court to order an investigation into how the materials found their way into the public domain.
Responding to the allegation, lawyers representing the six defendants distanced themselves from the incident and denied any involvement. Some of the defence counsel argued that the prosecution should file a formal application supported by an affidavit to allow them respond adequately.
Following the submissions, the court proceeded to hear pending bail applications filed by the defendants.
While defence lawyers urged the court to grant their clients bail on liberal terms, the prosecution opposed the requests and asked that the applications be refused.
Justice Abdulmalik subsequently adjourned proceedings to June 25 and June 30 for the first, second and third defendants to open their defence in the trial-within-trial. The fourth, fifth and sixth defendants are scheduled to present their defence on July 1 and July 2.
The court also fixed July 20 for ruling on the bail applications.
Earlier in the proceedings, the prosecution sought to tender statements allegedly made by the defendants to investigators.
The fourth prosecution witness, identified only as “DDD”, testified during the trial-within-trial and maintained that the statements were made voluntarily. He told the court that none of the defendants was subjected to torture, intimidation or harassment while being interviewed.
Led in evidence by Oyedepo, the witness rejected allegations made by the defendants that they were forced to make the statements, in which five of them, excluding the first defendant, allegedly admitted knowledge of the plot.
Addressing claims that the defendants were restrained during questioning, the witness said: “It is not true. The feet of the defendants were not chained they walked into the interview room by themselves.”
He added that if the defendants had indeed been chained, the sound would have been audible in the video recordings earlier played before the court.
On the absence of lawyers during the interview sessions, the witness told the court that none of the defendants requested the presence of their lawyers, family members, officials of the Legal Aid Council or a Justice of the Peace.
He urged the court to admit both the statements and audio-visual recordings of the interviews as evidence in the trial.
During cross-examination by defence counsel, the witness acknowledged that the statements were not made in the presence of lawyers, family members, Legal Aid Council officials or a Justice of the Peace. However, he maintained that the defendants were neither tortured nor coerced into making the statements.
At the end of the witness’s testimony, Oyedepo announced the closure of the prosecution’s case in the trial-within-trial after presenting four witnesses.