A 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, by calling its first witness to defend the voluntariness of extra-judicial statements made by the defendants.
The trial-within-trial is aimed at determining whether statements allegedly made by the defendants to military investigators were obtained voluntarily or under duress, coercion, torture, or inducement, as alleged by the defence.
When the proceedings commenced on Tuesday, the trial judge, Justice Joyce Abdulmalik, cautioned parties to restrict themselves strictly to issues relating to the voluntariness of the statements and avoid delving into substantive matters already pending in the main trial.
The prosecution, led by the Director of Public Prosecutions of the Federation (DPPF), Rotimi Oyedepo, SAN, informed the court that it had three witnesses to testify during the trial-within-trial.
He subsequently called the first witness, an officer of the Nigerian Army Corps of Military Police, who is also the fourth prosecution witness in the main trial. While being 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 in 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 1st to 5th defendants were admitted as Exhibits A to E respectively, 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 to their admissibility during the trial-within-trial, and the court admitted the devices as Exhibits G, G1, H, and H1.
While being led in evidence, 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 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.
The witness gave similar testimony regarding the 2nd defendant, identified as Captain Erasmus, stating that the senior military officer voluntarily elected 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 and insisted that all statements were made freely in the interest of justice.
Regarding the 3rd defendant, identified as an 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, arguing that the duration and nature of the video showed no signs of tension or force.
On the 4th defendant, identified as Umoru Zekeri, the witness expressed surprise over allegations that the statement was involuntary 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.
Concerning the 6th defendant, the witness explained that an interpreter was provided after the defendant indicated that 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 by defence counsel, the witness admitted that he was not a member of the Special Investigative Panel but stated that he 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 taken before the SIP.
The witness 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.
The witness 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, he insisted that all the 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.
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 the actual writing of statements, and the non-appearance of cautionary words in some exhibits.
The witness, however, maintained that the investigation process was transparent and conducted in line with military procedures and constitutional safeguards.
After the testimony of the witness, the court adjourned the matter until May 13, 2026, for continuation of the trial-within-trial.
