- Court Begins Trial-Within-Trial In Alleged Coup Plot Case Against Six Defendants
- While giving evidence, the witness maintained that the defendants were calm and fully aware of their constitutional rights before making their statements
- The witness further dismissed claims that discrepancies between oral interviews and written statements indicated coercion
A Federal High Court in Abuja has commenced a trial-within-trial in the case involving six persons accused of plotting to overthrow the administration of President Bola Tinubu, as the court moves to determine whether statements made by the defendants to military investigators were voluntarily obtained.
Eko Hot Blog reports that Justice Joyce Abdulmalik, who presided over proceedings on Tuesday, directed both prosecution and defence teams to confine arguments strictly to issues surrounding the voluntariness of the statements and avoid discussing substantive matters already before the court in the main trial.
EDITOR’S PICK
- Apapa, Tin Can, Lekki Ports Record Heavy Cargo Traffic
- Tinubu Investing Heavily In Knowledge-Driven Economy – Alausa
- Use Tinubu’s Correct Official Appellation, FG Tells Media Houses
The Director of Public Prosecution of the Federation, Rotimi Oyedepo (SAN), who led the prosecution team, informed the court that three witnesses had been lined up to testify during the trial-within-trial. The prosecution subsequently called its first witness, an officer of the Nigerian Army Corps of Military Police.
While giving evidence, the witness maintained that the defendants were calm and fully aware of their constitutional rights before making their statements. He said the interrogation process followed established procedures under the Administration of Criminal Justice Act, 2015, adding that none of the suspects was subjected to torture, coercion or inducement.
The prosecution tendered statements allegedly obtained from the six defendants by the Military Police and the Special Investigative Panel. The court admitted the statements as exhibits alongside an external hard drive and flash drive said to contain video recordings of the interrogations.
According to the witness, the recordings showed that the suspects were informed of their rights, including the right to remain silent and engage legal representation. He also insisted that the interrogation environment was conducive and professionally managed.
Speaking on the first defendant, a retired Army General, the witness described him as calm and cooperative throughout the process, adding that he was informed any statement made could later be used in court.
The witness further dismissed claims that discrepancies between oral interviews and written statements indicated coercion, arguing that written statements were not expected to be exact word-for-word reproductions of spoken conversations.
He also testified that the second defendant, identified as Captain Erasmus, voluntarily chose to put his oral account into writing after his recorded interview.
On allegations involving the third defendant, a police inspector, the witness denied claims of torture and maintained that video evidence showed the suspect remained relaxed during questioning.
The witness gave similar testimony regarding the remaining defendants, insisting they willingly made their statements after being informed of their rights.
In the case of the sixth defendant, he explained that an interpreter was provided because the suspect was not fluent in English, with translations conducted between Hausa and English before the statement was confirmed.
During cross-examination, defence lawyers challenged the witness over the absence of legal practitioners during interrogations, discrepancies in recording dates and the lack of footage showing suspects physically writing their statements.
The witness admitted that no lawyers or Justices of the Peace were present during the interrogations but maintained that the suspects were informed of their right to legal representation and did not request counsel.
He also acknowledged that some written statements and video recordings were made on different dates but argued that the sequence did not affect their validity.
After proceedings, Justice Abdulmalik adjourned the matter to May 13, 2026, for continuation of the trial-within-trial.
FURTHER READING
- Sanwo-Olu Administration Opens Stewardship Account To Lagosians
- Lagos Targets Zero Waste Economy With New Waste Management Plan
- Police Recover Truck, Rescue Victims After Gun Battle With Bandits
Click here to watch video of the week
