Court accepts statements from alleged coup plotters as evidence

The Federal High Court in Abuja began a trial‑within‑trial on Tuesday as part of the ongoing case against six individuals accused of conspiring to overthrow President Bola Tinubu’s government.

The purpose of the trial‑within‑trial is to decide whether the statements allegedly given by the defendants to military investigators were made voluntarily or were the result of duress, coercion, torture or inducement, as claimed by the defence.

At the start of the hearing, Justice Joyce Abdulmalik warned the parties to confine their arguments strictly to the issue of voluntariness and to refrain from addressing substantive matters that are already before the main trial.

The prosecution, represented by the Director of Public Prosecution of the Federation, Rotimi Oyedepo, SAN, told the court that three witnesses would testify in the trial‑within‑trial.

He then called the first witness, an officer of the Nigerian Army Corps of Military Police, who also serves as the fourth prosecution witness in the main trial.

In his evidence, the witness said the defendants were calm, unagitated and fully aware of their constitutional rights when they made their statements.

He asserted that the investigation followed the standard operating procedures and best investigative practices set out in the Administration of Criminal Justice Act 2015.

The prosecution then submitted the statements of the six defendants that were allegedly obtained by the Special Investigative Panel (SIP) and the Military Police.

Statements for defendants 1 through 5 were admitted as Exhibits A to E, while the statement of the sixth defendant was admitted as Exhibit F.

The prosecution also presented a black external hard drive and a flash drive alleged to contain video recordings of the defendants’ extra‑judicial statements, together with certificates of identification.

Defence counsel raised no objections to the admissibility of the devices, and the court admitted them as Exhibits G, G1, H and H1.

While testifying, the witness repeatedly emphasized 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 choose counsel.

Speaking specifically about the first defendant, a retired Army General, the witness described him as a highly respected senior officer who remained calm throughout the interrogation.

He said the general was placed in a properly ventilated room, cautioned about his rights and told that any statement he made could later be presented in court as his own account.

The witness added that the video recordings showed no evidence of coercion, intimidation or inducement, and argued that the consistency between the oral and written statements supported the claim that they were made voluntarily.

When asked why the written statements did not match the video interviews word for word, the witness explained that “human beings are not computers,” so exact transcription is not possible.

He also maintained that the military investigation team used modern investigative techniques and had no reason to force the suspects to speak.

The witness gave similar testimony regarding the second defendant, identified as Captain Erasmus, stating that the senior officer voluntarily reduced his oral statement to a written one after the recorded interview.

He rejected allegations that the defendant was coerced into pleading for clemency and insisted that all statements were made freely in the interest of justice.

Regarding the third defendant, an Inspector of the Nigeria Police Force, the witness dismissed claims of torture and coercion, noting that the video showed the inspector in a calm and relaxed posture throughout the interview.

He also rejected suggestions that the defendant might have been restrained out of the camera’s view, arguing that the duration and nature of the footage showed no signs of tension or force.

On the fourth defendant, identified as Umoru Zekeri, the witness expressed surprise at the allegations of involuntariness and maintained that the defendant freely narrated events and locations that were allegedly known only to him.

The witness further testified that the fifth defendant, Bukar Kashim Goni, willingly gave his account after being informed of his rights and choosing to tell his side of the story.

Concerning the sixth defendant, the witness explained that an interpreter was provided after the suspect indicated limited proficiency in English. He said the statements were translated between Hausa and English in accordance with fair‑hearing requirements and then read back to the defendant for confirmation.

During cross‑examination, the witness admitted that 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 taken before the Military Police, not those recorded before the SIP.

When questioned about the timing of the recordings, the witness conceded that some video recordings and written statements were made on different dates but argued that the sequence did not affect their voluntariness as long as they were freely given.

The witness confirmed that none of the statements presented to the court bore the endorsement of legal practitioners and that no lawyers, civil‑society representatives or Justices of the Peace were present during the recordings.

Nevertheless, he insisted that all defendants were informed of their right to legal representation, although none requested counsel 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 to written form and endorsed by the suspects after being read back to them.

Counsel for several defendants highlighted discrepancies concerning the dates of recordings, the absence of lawyers during interrogations, the lack of video footage showing the actual writing of statements, and the omission of cautionary language in some exhibits.

The witness, however, maintained that the investigation was transparent and conducted in accordance with military procedures and constitutional safeguards.

At the close of Tuesday’s hearing, the court adjourned the matter until May 13, 2026, for the continuation of the trial‑within‑trial.