He also noted that there is no application before the court from the prosecution for a stay of proceedings and that the phone numbers of witnesses are not included in their statement of testimonies submitted to the court.

The Senior lawyer added that the prosecution counsel did not place any concrete fact before the court to prove his allegations of death threats.

Muoma therefore urged the court not to succumb to sentiments arguing that the prosecution has proved that it can not open its case. He therefore asked the court to apply section 351 (1) of Administration of Criminal Justice Act to dismiss the case.

“The fact of the case make application of section 351 (1) of ACJA compelling and applicable because the prosecution is not ready to open its case and proceed with the trial. The right to fair hearing is guaranteed by the Constitution. The charges against the accused should be dismissed and the defendants should be discharged and acquitted and because the prosecution has not obeyed court orders in the past, the court should made an order that the defendants should not be re-arrested on a similar charge,” said Muoma.

But the Prosecution counsel opposed the application, arguing that the ACJA only specified that a case should be struck out if the complainant was not present in court.

“The issue before the court is that our witnesses are ready. They are definitely coming to testify before the court. Section 35 (1) of ACJA does not apply to the present case. It is talking about complainants, but we are all around. We have not told the court that our witnesses are not around. They are around. We are simply asking this court to vary its order,” said Diri.

While ruling on the application, Justice Tsoho said Section 351 (1) of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act mentioned must be considered in relation to the complainant in this matter.

The Judge ruled that the complainant in the case is the Federal Government represented by the Office of Minister of Justice and the Attorney General of the Federation.

He ruled that the office is represented in court by the Director of Public Prosecution who is prosecuting the case.

The Judge therefore ruled that the specific  provision of ACJ does not apply in the matter before him as it is wrong to assume that the complainants are absent.

The Judge further noted that the request to allow witnesses testified behind screens was not different from its earlier ruling that the witnesses be allowed to use secret court rooms.

He said even though they will testify behind screens, the  witnesses would be visible to the defendants and the counsel.

“In the light of this, the court is disposed to granting the application sought by the learned DPP,” the judge ruled.

But the drama was not over as the defence counsel asked the court for more explanation, arguing that the procedure is novel to him.

This forced the Judge to explain that screens have been used to protect witnesses during trial in the court before. He further argued that the use of screen is not the same as allowing witnesses to wear masks during trial.

“The defence is not comfortable with this arrangement. I have not experienced it in my 35 years of practice. I will have to consult with my clients or go to higher court,” said Muoma.

Justice Tsoho and the prosecution counsel also tried to convince the defence counsel that the procedure will not prevent him or the defendants from seeing the witnesses, though others who are in court will be barred from seeing them.