The Federal High Court in Abuja on Tuesday began a trial-within-trial in the case against six persons accused of plotting to overthrow the government of President Bola Tinubu.
The trial-within-trial will 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 start of proceedings, trial judge Justice Joyce Abdulmalik cautioned parties to restrict themselves strictly to issues relating to voluntariness of the statements and avoid delving into substantive matters already pending in the main trial.
The prosecution, led by the Director of Public Prosecution of the Federation DPPF, Rotimi Oyedepo, SAN, told the court it had three witnesses for the trial-within-trial. He called the first witness, an officer of the Nigerian Army Corps of Military Police, who is the 4th prosecution witness in the main trial.
Led in evidence, the witness told the court that the defendants were calm, unagitated and fully aware of their constitutional rights before making their statements.
He maintained that the investigation process complied with standard operating procedures and best investigative practices as stipulated by the Administration of Criminal Justice Act 2015.
The prosecution tendered the statements of the six defendants allegedly obtained by the Special Investigative Panel, SIP and the Military Police. Statements relating to the 1st to 5th defendants were admitted as Exhibits series A to series E, while that of the 6th defendant was admitted as Exhibit F.
The prosecution also tendered a black external hard drive and a flash drive said to contain video recordings of the defendants’ extra-judicial statements alongside certificates of identification. Defence lawyers raised no objections and the court admitted the devices as Exhibits G, G1, H and H1.
The witness 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 on the 1st defendant, a retired Army General, the witness described him as a highly respected senior military officer who remained calm throughout the interrogation process.
According to him, the defendant was placed in a properly ventilated room, cautioned about his rights and informed that any statement made could later be tendered in court as his own side of the story.
The witness further told the court that the video recordings showed no sign of coercion, intimidation or inducement and argued that the similarity between the oral and written statements reinforced the claim that they were voluntarily made.
On allegations that the written statements did not correspond exactly with the recorded video interviews, the witness explained that written accounts could not be word-for-word reproductions of oral interviews because “human beings are not computers.”
He also maintained that the military investigation team employed modern investigative techniques and had no reason to force suspects into making statements.
Similar testimony was given for the 2nd defendant, identified as Captain Erasmus, with the witness saying he voluntarily reduced his oral statement into writing after the recorded interview. He denied allegations that the defendant was coerced into pleading for clemency and insisted all statements were made freely.
For the 3rd defendant, identified as Inspector of the Nigeria Police Force, the witness dismissed claims of torture and coercion, stating that 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.
On the 4th defendant, identified as Umoru Zekeri, the witness expressed surprise over allegations of involuntariness and maintained that the defendant freely narrated events and locations allegedly known only to him.
The witness also testified that the 5th 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.
For the 6th defendant, the witness said an interpreter was provided after the defendant indicated he could neither speak nor write English fluently. He said the suspect’s statements were translated between Hausa and English in line with fair hearing requirements before they were read back to him for confirmation.
During cross-examination, the witness admitted he was not a member of the Special Investigative Panel but said he participated intermittently in the investigation. He also acknowledged that the video recordings shown in court related only to statements made before the Military Police and not those taken before the SIP.
He admitted that some video recordings and written statements were made on different dates but maintained that the sequence did not affect their voluntariness so long as they were freely made. He confirmed that none of the statements bore endorsements by legal practitioners and that no lawyers, civil society representatives or Justices of the Peace were present during the recordings.
However, he insisted that all defendants were informed of their rights to legal representation but did not request lawyers during the 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.
Defence counsel raised issues on discrepancies in dates of recordings, absence of lawyers, lack of video footage showing actual writing of statements and missing cautionary words in some exhibits. The witness maintained that the investigation process was transparent and conducted in line with military procedures and constitutional safeguards.
The court adjourned the matter till May 13, 2026, for continuation of the trial-within-trial.
