The court said the witness could face serious security risks if his identity were made public.
This development marks an important step in the ongoing corruption case involving the former Secretary to the Inter-Ministerial Committee on Illegal Mining (IMCIM).
This development marks an important step in the ongoing corruption case involving the former Secretary to the Inter-Ministerial Committee on Illegal Mining (IMCIM).
Mr. Bissue, along with two others, has been accused of wrongdoing related to the handling of mining-related approvals and official procedures.
According to the OSP, the accused individuals allegedly bypassed laid-down IMCIM processes to secure benefits for a company that investigators said did not meet the required standards.
According to the OSP, the accused individuals allegedly bypassed laid-down IMCIM processes to secure benefits for a company that investigators said did not meet the required standards.
The allegations came to light after a media investigation and a formal petition submitted to the Special Prosecutor. All three accused have pleaded not guilty.
During the court sitting, prosecutors argued that the first witness — described as someone closely involved in the original exposé — required protection due to potential threats tied to the case.
During the court sitting, prosecutors argued that the first witness — described as someone closely involved in the original exposé — required protection due to potential threats tied to the case.
They explained that revealing the witness’s identity in open court could compromise his safety and the broader investigation.
The defence lawyers objected to the request, insisting that allowing the witness to testify behind closed doors could prejudice the trial.
The defence lawyers objected to the request, insisting that allowing the witness to testify behind closed doors could prejudice the trial.
They argued that the defence had a right to know who was testifying and insisted that open court hearings were essential for transparency.
However, after listening to both sides, the court concluded that the security concerns outweighed the defence objections.
However, after listening to both sides, the court concluded that the security concerns outweighed the defence objections.
The judge ruled that the protected-witness arrangement was necessary to ensure the person could speak freely without fear of retaliation.
This ruling means that the witness will testify privately, with only selected individuals present. Details about how the testimony will be organised have not been made public, but the court is expected to take strict measures to maintain confidentiality.
The case has drawn significant public interest because of its link to illegal mining, commonly known as “galamsey.”
This ruling means that the witness will testify privately, with only selected individuals present. Details about how the testimony will be organised have not been made public, but the court is expected to take strict measures to maintain confidentiality.
The case has drawn significant public interest because of its link to illegal mining, commonly known as “galamsey.”
Over the years, galamsey has caused environmental damage and has been the subject of several national campaigns aimed at stopping the practice.
The IMCIM was formed to help regulate and coordinate these anti-galamsey efforts, making allegations of corruption within the committee especially serious.
The trial is part of a broader effort by the OSP to pursue corruption cases involving public officials.
The trial is part of a broader effort by the OSP to pursue corruption cases involving public officials.
The office has repeatedly emphasised that it will push for accountability, even in politically sensitive cases.
Granting witness protection, according to legal experts, strengthens the OSP’s ability to investigate matters that involve powerful individuals or organisations.
Following the court’s decision, the case was adjourned to January 12, 2026. On that date, proceedings will continue with the protected testimony and additional submissions from both sides.
Following the court’s decision, the case was adjourned to January 12, 2026. On that date, proceedings will continue with the protected testimony and additional submissions from both sides.
The timeline for completing the trial remains uncertain, as cases involving multiple defendants and several witnesses often take time.
The OSP has welcomed the ruling, stating that it supports their commitment to ensuring witnesses feel safe enough to provide truthful information during investigations and court processes.
The OSP has welcomed the ruling, stating that it supports their commitment to ensuring witnesses feel safe enough to provide truthful information during investigations and court processes.
In a message shared on social media, the office said the court recognised the high risk the witness faced and agreed that protection was necessary to uphold justice.
Meanwhile, members of the public and civil society groups will continue to watch the case closely.
Meanwhile, members of the public and civil society groups will continue to watch the case closely.
Many believe that the outcome of the trial could set an important precedent for future corruption cases, especially those involving allegations of abuse of office and improper conduct by public officials.