Proceedings resumed Tuesday at the Federal High Court in Abuja in the alleged coup conspiracy case, with the court opening a trial-within-trial to determine whether statements credited to the six defendants were freely made.
The special hearing followed objections by defence lawyers, who challenged the circumstances under which the statements were obtained, alleging coercion and other forms of pressure during interrogation.
Presiding over the matter, the trial judge directed counsel to confine their submissions strictly to the question of voluntariness, warning against arguments relating to the substance of the main charge.
Representing the Federal Government, Director of Public Prosecution, Rotimi Oyedepo informed the court that three witnesses had been scheduled to testify in the mini-hearing.
The prosecution then presented its first witness, a military police officer attached to the investigation.
Giving evidence, the officer told the court that all six accused persons were duly informed of their constitutional protections before their statements were taken. He insisted that none was threatened, forced or denied the opportunity to engage legal counsel.
According to him, the investigative process complied with both statutory provisions and established military procedures.
During the session, the prosecution tendered written statements allegedly made by the defendants, as well as electronic devices containing video recordings of their interviews.
must read:Alleged Coup Plot: Defendant Claims He Was Misled
The materials were admitted into evidence without objection from defence counsel.
The witness maintained that the recordings clearly showed the defendants speaking voluntarily and without signs of intimidation.
Addressing specific allegations, he described the first defendant, a retired senior military officer, as composed throughout his interrogation and fully aware of his rights.
He also dismissed claims of coercion involving the other defendants, including allegations of torture and unlawful restraint.
On the sixth defendant, the witness said interpretation services were provided to ensure clear communication, adding that the suspect’s statement was translated and read back before confirmation.
Under cross-examination, however, the officer admitted he was not a member of the Special Investigative Panel that initially handled parts of the investigation.
He further acknowledged that lawyers were absent during the recording of the statements and confirmed that some written statements were completed outside the video footage presented in court.
Despite defence efforts to highlight inconsistencies, including discrepancies in dates and procedural gaps, the witness stood by the integrity of the process.
The court adjourned further hearing in the trial-within-trial until Wednesday, May 13, 2026.
(Editor: Terverr Tyav)
