The Federal High Court sitting in Abuja on Tuesday commenced a trial-within-trial in the ongoing prosecution of six persons accused of plotting to overthrow the government of President Bola Tinubu.
The trial-within-trial is to determine whether statements allegedly made by the defendants to military investigators were obtained voluntarily or under duress, coercion, torture or inducement, as claimed by the defence.
At the commencement of proceedings, trial judge, Justice Joyce Abdulmalik, cautioned parties to confine themselves strictly to issues relating to the voluntariness of the statements and avoid delving into substantive matters pending in the main trial.
The prosecution, led by the Director of Public Prosecution of the Federation, Rotimi Oyedepo, SAN, informed the court that it had three witnesses scheduled to testify during the trial-within-trial.
The prosecution subsequently called its first witness, an officer of the Nigerian Army Corps of Military Police, who is also the fourth prosecution witness in the substantive trial.
While being led in evidence, the witness told the court that the defendants were calm, composed and fully aware of their constitutional rights before making their statements.
He maintained that the investigation complied with standard operating procedures and best investigative practices under the Administration of Criminal Justice Act, 2015.
The prosecution thereafter tendered the statements of the six defendants allegedly obtained by the Special Investigative Panel, SIP, and the Military Police.
Statements relating to the first to fifth defendants were admitted as Exhibits series A to E, while the statement of the sixth defendant was admitted as Exhibit F.
The court also admitted a black external hard drive and a flash drive, said to contain video recordings of the defendants’ extra-judicial statements, alongside certificates of identification, as Exhibits G, G1, H and H1 after defence counsel raised no objections.
During testimony, the witness repeatedly insisted that no defendant was denied access to legal representation and that all suspects were informed of their rights, including the right to remain silent and the right to engage counsel of their choice.
Speaking specifically on the first defendant, a retired Army General, the witness described him as a respected senior military officer who remained calm throughout the interrogation process.
According to him, the defendant was placed in a properly ventilated room, informed of his rights and cautioned that any statement he made could later be tendered in court.
The witness further stated that the video recordings showed no sign of coercion, intimidation or inducement, adding that similarities between the oral and written statements reinforced the prosecution’s claim that the statements were voluntarily made.
Responding to allegations that the written statements did not correspond exactly with the recorded interviews, the witness explained that written accounts could not be exact word-for-word reproductions of oral interviews because “human beings are not computers.”
He also maintained that the military investigation team adopted modern investigative techniques and had no reason to force suspects into making statements.
On the second defendant, identified as Captain Erasmus, the witness testified that the officer voluntarily chose to reduce his oral statement into writing after speaking during the recorded interview.
He denied allegations that the defendant was coerced into pleading for clemency, insisting that all statements were freely made.
Regarding the third defendant, identified as an Inspector in the Nigeria Police Force, the witness dismissed claims of torture and coercion, saying the video recordings showed the defendant in a calm and relaxed posture throughout the interview process.
He also rejected suggestions that the defendant may have been restrained outside the camera frame, arguing that the nature and duration of the footage showed no indication of force or intimidation.
Speaking on the fourth defendant, identified as Umoru Zekeri, the witness expressed surprise over allegations of involuntariness and stated that the defendant freely narrated events and locations allegedly known only to him.
The witness also testified that the fifth defendant, identified as Bukar Kashim Goni, willingly gave his account after being informed of his rights and choosing to tell his own side of the story.
Concerning the sixth defendant, the witness explained that an interpreter was provided after the suspect indicated he could neither speak nor write English fluently.
According to him, the suspect’s statements were translated between Hausa and English in line with fair hearing requirements before being read back to him for confirmation.
During cross-examination by defence counsel, the witness admitted that he was not a member of the Special Investigative Panel but participated intermittently in the investigation process.
He also acknowledged that the video recordings shown in court related only to statements made before the Military Police and not those obtained before the SIP.
Under questioning, the witness admitted that some video recordings and written statements were made on different dates but insisted that the sequence did not affect their voluntariness so long as they were freely made.
He further confirmed that none of the statements tendered before the court bore endorsements by legal practitioners and that no lawyers, civil society representatives or Justices of the Peace were present during the recordings.
However, the witness maintained that all defendants were informed of their rights to legal representation but chose not to request lawyers during interrogation sessions.
He also admitted that some defendants were not shown physically writing their statements in the videos, explaining that oral accounts were later reduced into writing and endorsed by the suspects after being read back to them.
Counsel to several defendants confronted the witness with discrepancies relating to dates of recordings, the absence of lawyers during interrogations, lack of video footage showing actual writing of statements and the non-appearance of cautionary words in some exhibits.
The witness, however, insisted that the investigation process was transparent and conducted in line with military procedures and constitutional safeguards.
Following the conclusion of proceedings, Justice Abdulmalik adjourned the matter till May 13, 2026, for continuation of the trial-within-trial.
