Request from New Defense Attorney Delays Yelwata Massacre Trial

The trial concerning the nine suspects of the Yelwata massacre faced another postponement at the Federal High Court in Abuja on Wednesday.

Presiding judge, Joyce Abdulmalik, announced the adjournment after receiving a request from Y.A. Hassan, the attorney for the eighth and ninth defendants. He stated that it was his first time handling the case and he had not yet acquired a comprehensive understanding of the charges.

On February 2, the Nigerian government arraigned the nine defendants linked to the violent attack that occurred on June 13, 2025, in Yelwata village, situated in the Guma Local Government Area of Benue State, a tragedy reportedly resulting in around 150 fatalities.

The prosecution, spearheaded by the Attorney-General of the Federation and Minister of Justice, Lateef Fagbemi, presented the defendants with 57 terrorism charges.

The individuals implicated include Ardo Lawal Mohammed Dono, Haruna Abdullahi, Ardo Muhammadu Saidu, Yakubu Adamu, Musa Mohammed, Abubakar Adamu, Shaibu Ibrahim, Sale Mohammed, and Bako Jibrin, all of whom are male.

During the latest court session, after lawyers affirmed their presence, Y.A. Hassan requested a brief adjournment, indicating he was not yet familiar with the specifics of the case.

The prosecution's attorney, Rotimi Oyedepo, who is also the Director of Public Prosecutions, did not oppose the request. However, he noted that while cross- examination of a prosecution witness could be postponed until the next court date, it was possible to begin taking the witness’s initial testimony.

Despite this suggestion, Mr. Hassan maintained his stance that he was unprepared, leading the judge to caution him and ultimately deciding to adjourn the case.

Judge Abdulmalik remarked that it was essential for defense attorneys to obtain necessary information from prior counsel before appearing in court, advising that before taking a case, pertinent questions should be posed to avoid wasting judicial resources.

She further emphasized the public interest surrounding this case and warned against unwarranted delays, rescheduling the next hearing for March 9 and 10 for the trial's continuation.

The charges against the nine men stem from allegations that they masterminded the devastating attack on Yelwata village.

According to the prosecution, the defendants face 57 amended terrorism charges under the Terrorism (Prevention and Prohibition) Act of 2022. These include planning the assault, recruiting combatants, offering financial and logistical support, and orchestrating the armed attack that led to significant loss of life and destruction of property.

All defendants pleaded not guilty during their arraignment.

They are currently held at the Kuje Correctional Centre, with trial proceedings initially set to commence on February 26 and 27.

On February 26, the prosecution presented its first witness, a senior member of the Nigeria Police Force's Intelligence Response Unit. The officer detailed the events leading to the Yelwata attack, reporting that the attackers, armed with rifles, descended upon the village following previous meetings in Nasarawa State.

He articulated a link between the organization and mobilization of the armed group to these prior meetings, recounting instances of murder, injuries, and the ensuing havoc unleashed on the village.

However, on February 27, the session was temporarily interrupted as the eighth and ninth defendants were left without legal representation after their previous lawyer requested to withdraw.

This situation necessitated another adjournment until March 4 to address the legal representation issues.

Additionally, a federal team of forensic pathologists recently exhumed 105 bodies from mass graves in the Yelwata area as part of a broader investigation into the violent attacks. Reports indicate that federal officials collaborated with the Benue State Emergency Management Agency during this process.

This forensic activity was initiated following the arraignment of the suspects, as the court underscored the necessity of such evidence to ensure a fair trial and accurate assessment of culpability.