The Federal High Court in Abuja on Monday granted bail to social critic and online commentator, Justice Chidebere, popularly known as Justice Crack, who is facing prosecution over alleged cybercrime-related offences linked to a viral video concerning the feeding and welfare of Nigerian Army personnel.
Presiding judge, Justice Joyce Abdulmalik, admitted the defendant to bail in the sum of N5 million with one surety in like amount after the Federal Government opened its case against him.
The Department of State Services (DSS) is prosecuting Justice Crack over allegations bordering on the circulation of false information and publications allegedly capable of causing public unrest.
At the resumed hearing on Monday, the prosecution called its first witness, Uruntu Douglas, a DSS operative, who testified before the court.
Douglas told the court that the defendant was transferred to DSS custody by the Nigerian Army Intelligence Corps, after which he obtained an extrajudicial statement from him.
According to the witness, Justice Crack voluntarily made his statement during interrogation.
He further informed the court that data extracted from the defendant’s mobile phone included photographs and materials allegedly received from soldiers complaining about their welfare and feeding conditions.
The witness said the materials were subsequently published by the defendant on his social media platforms, including Instagram, Facebook, X, YouTube, and TikTok.
Copies of the social media pages and publications were tendered before the court and admitted as exhibits during proceedings.
The hearing of the bail application had earlier been stalled last Thursday following disagreements between two lawyers who separately claimed to have been engaged to represent the defendant through the Crack Insecurity Solutions Forum.
The Federal Government, through the DSS, had filed charges against Justice Crack in suit number FHC/ABJ/CR/253/2026 over alleged cybercrime offences linked to a viral video concerning the Nigerian Army.
The prosecution alleged that the defendant circulated false information and materials capable of inciting public unrest.
The matter was adjourned for continuation of trial.
