Admin l Friday, October 25, 2019
CALABAR, Cross River, Nigeria – It appears the last is yet to be heard about the intrigues surrounding the ordeal of journalist and publisher of Crossriverwatch.com, Mr. Agba Jalingo who is on trial for daring to pokenose into the finances of the state.
Agba Jalingo who came into the black books of Cross River State Governor, Professor Ben Ayade for publishing an article, in which he queried the whereabouts of the N500 million approved and released by the Cross River State government for the floating of Cross Rivers State Microfinance bank is currently faces charges of treasonable felony, malicious publication and instigating the people of Cross Rivers State against the governor.
Agba Jalingo has been in detention since August 22 when he was arrested in Lagos, following an invitation by the Cross River State Police command and driven by road to Cross River State. At the sitting on Wednesday, Justice Simon Amobeda granted leave to the prosecution to mask its witnesses when it is time to testify against Agba Jalingo.
Justice Amobeda, relied on Section 33 and 34 of the Terrorism Prevention and Amendment Act 2013 as well as international conventions including those of the United Nations and African Commission of Human and People’s rights among others to grant the plea of the prosecution.
“The public and the press will not be allowed into the courtroom when the witness is testifying”, Justice Amobeda said and that the witness will testify behind curtains in a cubicle and to a camera. The defendant and his counsel will also not be privy to the name, alias or any other detail of the witness, he said.
The prosecution, led by Dennis Tarhemba had on October 11, 2019 filed a motion seeking amendment of charges and to protect witness, supported by affidavit of 8 paragraph deposed to by Inspector Ihezuo Ibe and accompanied by a written address.
In his reply, Defence counsel, James Ibor submitted that the defendant does not constitute a threat and faulted the application for the masking of the witnesses as there was no proper evidence as to when, where and how the witness was threatened.
He also averred that the person said to have carried out the alleged threat was not named and that masking of a witness will not be in public interest.
