- Fresh Controversy Erupts In Trial Of 36 Soldiers Over Alleged Coup Plot
- Court-martial ruled it has jurisdiction over the mutiny charges.
- Judge Advocate reportedly apologised for disputed prima facie remark.
Fresh controversy has emerged at the General Court-Martial trying 36 military personnel accused of plotting to overthrow the administration of President Bola Tinubu.
The dispute arose after defence lawyers alleged that the President of the tribunal suggested that a prima facie case had already been established against the defendants, despite the prosecution yet to call witnesses or present evidence before the court.
The development has triggered concerns over the impartiality of the tribunal, with members of the defence team reportedly demanding that the court-martial panel recuse itself from the case.
EDITOR’S PICKS
- Tinubu Meets Anyim, Abiodun, Other APC Leaders After Primary Election
- Fresh Details Emerge In Tragic Death Of Three Sisters Found In UK Sea
- Tinubu Orders 50% Reduction in Train Fares for Eid-el-Kabir Travellers
EKO HOT BLOG reports that according to sources familiar with the proceedings, the defence had initially challenged the jurisdiction of the tribunal, arguing that the allegations amounted to treason and should therefore be handled by the Federal High Court rather than a military court.
However, the General Court-Martial dismissed the objection and ruled that it possessed the legal authority to hear the matter.
A member of the defence team said concerns intensified when the tribunal allegedly stated in its ruling that a prima facie case had already been established against the accused personnel.
“At that stage, no witness had testified and no evidence had been led. Yet the court-martial stated in its ruling that a prima facie case had been established against the defendants,” the lawyer said.
The defence argued that such a statement created the impression that the tribunal had already formed an opinion on the substance of the case before hearing evidence.
One of the lawyers subsequently requested that the panel withdraw from further proceedings.
Sources said the issue generated lengthy arguments among both parties before the court.
According to the sources, the Judge Advocate later acknowledged that the statement was made in error and apologised. The Judge Advocate reportedly suggested that the reference to a prima facie case be removed from the ruling.
However, defence lawyers opposed the proposal, insisting that the statement had already been made in open court and should remain part of the official record.
After further deliberations, the suggestion to amend the ruling was reportedly abandoned.
The defence team thereafter applied for certified copies of the court proceedings, particularly the ruling containing the disputed statement, to verify how it was reflected in the official records.
Sources said the requested documents had yet to be released.
In the ruling delivered by the President of the General Court-Martial, Air Vice Marshal H.I. Alhaji, the tribunal held that the Defence Headquarters Garrison Commander had the legal authority under the Armed Forces Act to convene the court-martial.
The tribunal also rejected arguments that the case should be treated strictly as treason and transferred to the Federal High Court.
“The accused are standing trial on offences relating to mutiny and failure to suppress mutiny,” the court ruled.
The 36 defendants, comprising senior officers, junior officers and other personnel drawn from the Nigerian Army, Navy and Air Force, are facing multiple charges bordering on conspiracy, mutiny, failure to suppress mutiny and related offences allegedly committed between January 2022 and November 2025.
