Portions of a Georgia grand jury’s report on whether Donald Trump and allies committed crimes when they tried to overturn the 2020 election will be made public this week, but the entirety of the report will remain secret until the Fulton county prosecutor decides whether to bring charges, a judge ruled on Monday.

The sections that will be made public are the report’s introduction, conclusion and a section discussing whether some of the witnesses who testified before the special purpose grand jury lied under oath. The section does not identify which witnesses may have lied.

Those sections will be made public on the court docket on 16 February, Robert McBurney, a Fulton county judge ruled on Monday.

The decision is the latest development in a closely watched investigation opened by Fani Willis, the Fulton county district attorney, into efforts to overturn the results of the November 2020 election. Last month, Willis appeared in court to say she opposed releasing the report in full until she decided whether to file criminal charges, a decision she said at the time was “imminent”.

Trump – who infamously pressed Georgia’s top election official to “find 11,780 votes” to overturn the election – and allies could face a range of criminal charges under Georgia law. It is a state crime to intentionally try to get someone to commit election fraud or to interfere with an official who is carrying out election duties. Willis is also reportedly considering bringing Rico racketeering charges against Trump.

In an eight-page ruling, McBurney said he had reviewed the report and that the grand jury had fulfilled its purpose. But releasing the entirety of the report before Willis makes a decision on criminal charges could violate the due process rights of those named in the report, he wrote.

“By all appearances, the special purpose grand jury did its work by the book. The problem here, in discussing public disclosure, is that that book’s rules do not allow for the objects of the District Attorney’s attention to be heard in the manner we require in a court of law,” he wrote.

“The consequence of these due process deficiencies is not that the special purpose grand jury’s final report is forever suppressed or that its recommendations for or against indictment are in any way flawed or suspect. Rather, the consequence is that those recommendations are for the District Attorney’s eyes only – for now.”