The Federal High Court in Abuja set bail for activist and social media personality Justice Mark Chidiebere, widely recognized as Justice Crack, at N5 million. Justice Joyce Abdulmalik stipulated that the bail bond must be supported by one surety of the same amount.
The court mandated that the surety must live within the court’s jurisdiction with a permanent address for at least four years and provide proof of residence, such as a tenancy agreement or certificate of occupancy, to the court registry. Additionally, the surety must be a federal civil servant at grade level 15 or above, with evidence of three months’ salary, an authentication letter from their department head, and proof of pensionable employment. The surety must also swear an affidavit of means, submit a recent passport photo, and the defendant must surrender his international passport to the court.
Earlier, prosecution counsel M.L. Jackson announced readiness to proceed with the trial. The first witness, DSS operative Uruntu Douglas, testified that he met the defendant during an investigation after the Nigerian Army Intelligence Corps transferred him to the DSS. Douglas stated that the defendant voluntarily provided an extra-judicial statement recorded in the presence of his lawyers.
The witness revealed that soldiers had supplied pictures to the defendant, who allegedly created videos from those images and shared them on social media without verifying their authenticity with military authorities. Investigators retrieved data from the defendant’s phone, including the posted videos, conversations with soldiers, chats with his godfather about protests, and social media content. A certificate of compliance was issued and signed by a superior officer after the forensic analysis.
Defense counsel Sam Amadi argued that the prosecution had not provided the investigation report and other documents they intended to submit. The prosecution admitted the oversight and apologized. Justice Abdulmalik admitted the DSS report as Exhibit A. The prosecution also submitted an iPhone allegedly belonging to the defendant, a flash drive with videos from social media, device conversations, and the compliance certificate. The defense objected to the flash drive’s admissibility, claiming its content was not described or played in court. The trial continues on May 25, with the first witness still on the stand.