In her ruling on Monday, May 18, the judge also ordered the defendant to provide one surety in an equivalent amount.

The court stipulated that the surety must reside within the court’s jurisdiction at a fixed address for at least four years and must present proof of residence, such as a tenancy agreement or certificate of occupancy, to the court registry.

Justice Abdulmalik further directed that the surety must be a federal civil servant not below Grade Level 15, with evidence of at least three months’ salary, an official letter of authentication from a department head, and proof of pensionable employment. The surety is also required to submit an affidavit of means and a recent passport photograph.

As part of the bail conditions, the defendant was ordered to deposit his international passport with the court.

Earlier in the proceedings, the prosecution informed the court of its readiness to begin trial, calling its first witness, Uruntu Douglas, a Department of State Services (DSS) operative.

Douglas told the court he became involved in the investigation after being transferred from the Nigerian Army Intelligence Corps, adding that the defendant made a voluntary statement in the presence of his lawyers.

He alleged that soldiers had sent images to the defendant, which were later used to create videos and published on social media without verification from military authorities.

The witness further claimed that forensic analysis of the defendant’s phone revealed videos, online posts, conversations with soldiers, and chats with an alleged associate discussing protests, alongside social media activity. He said a certificate of compliance was issued after the forensic examination.

During the hearing, defence counsel Sam Amadi argued that key prosecution documents had not been served on the defence, prompting the prosecution to apologise and describe it as an oversight.

Justice Abdulmalik admitted the DSS investigation report as Exhibit A and also accepted several items tendered by the prosecution, including an iPhone allegedly recovered from the defendant and a flash drive said to contain social media videos and extracted conversations.

However, the defence objected to the flash drive, arguing that its contents had not been properly demonstrated in court.

The case was subsequently adjourned to May 25 for continuation of trial, with the first prosecution witness yet to be discharged at the time of adjournment.