Court admits statements of alleged coup plotters as exhibits
Federal High Court Begins Trial-Within-Trial in Government Overthrow Case
ABUJA — The Federal High Court in Abuja initiated a trial-within-trial on Tuesday as it continues to prosecute six individuals accused of plotting to overthrow the government of President Bola Tinubu.
This special proceeding seeks to ascertain whether statements made by the defendants to military investigators were obtained voluntarily or under duress, coercion, or torture, as claimed by the defense.
Justice Joyce Abdulmalik, presiding over the trial, advised all parties to focus solely on the voluntariness of the statements and to refrain from discussing substantive matters related to the main trial.
The prosecution, led by Rotimi Oyedepo, Director of Public Prosecution of the Federation, announced that it would present three witnesses during this phase. The proceedings began with the testimony of an officer from the Nigerian Army Corps of Military Police, who is the fourth witness in the broader case.
The military officer stated that the defendants were calm and aware of their constitutional rights during the statement-taking process. He asserted that the investigation adhered to standard operating procedures and complied with the Administration of Criminal Justice Act of 2015.
The prosecution submitted statements allegedly obtained by the Special Investigative Panel (SIP) and the Military Police, categorized as Exhibits A to E for five defendants, with Exhibit F for the sixth defendant. Additionally, a black external hard drive and a flash drive containing video recordings of the defendants’ extra-judicial statements were introduced as Exhibits G, G1, H, and H1, respectively.
Throughout the testimony, the witness emphasized that all defendants had access to legal representation and had been informed of their rights, including the right to remain silent. He characterized the first defendant, a retired Army General, as a respected military figure who was composed during questioning and was placed in a well-ventilated environment where he was informed that any statements made could be presented in court.
The witness described the video recordings as free of any signs of coercion and maintained that the similarities between the oral and written statements supported the assertion of voluntariness. He addressed critiques regarding discrepancies between written and oral accounts, stating that they cannot be expected to match verbatim.
He provided similar testimony about the second defendant, Captain Erasmus, who reportedly chose to write down his oral statement after the recorded interview. The witness denied that any coercion occurred during the process.
In regard to the third defendant, an inspector with the Nigerian Police Force, the witness dismissed claims of torture and insisted that video footage depicted the defendant in a relaxed state throughout the interview.
The witness spoke to the fourth defendant, Umoru Zekeri, expressing surprise at allegations of involuntariness, asserting that Zekeri spoke freely of events only he could know. For the fifth defendant, Bukar Kashim Goni, the officer testified that he willingly shared his account after being reminded of his rights.
The sixth defendant required an interpreter, as he struggled with English. The witness reported that statements were translated accurately prior to confirming their contents.
During cross-examination, the defense counsel raised concerns about the credibility of the evidence. The witness admitted that he was not a member of the SIP and indicated that the video recordings submitted were specific to the Military Police’s investigations. He acknowledged variances in dates for the statements but maintained that this did not undermine their voluntariness.
None of the statements brought before the court bore endorsements from legal practitioners, nor were any lawyers present during the interrogations. The witness asserted, however, that all defendants had been informed of their right to legal counsel but did not request representation.
After the hearing concluded, the court adjourned the case until May 13, 2026, for the continuation of the trial-within-trial.
