ABUJA – On Tuesday the Federal High Court in Abuja opened a trial‑within‑trial to decide whether statements obtained from six men alleged to have plotted to overthrow President Bola Tinubu’s government were given voluntarily or under duress. The auxiliary proceeding runs parallel to the main trial that continues to examine the substantive terrorism charges against the accused.
Justice Joyce Abdulmalik, presiding over the hearing, warned counsel to confine their arguments to the voluntariness of the statements and to refrain from addressing any of the substantive matters already before the main court.
The prosecution, led by Director of Public Prosecutions Rotimi Oyedepo, SAN, called its first witness – an officer of the Nigerian Army Corps of Military Police who also appears as the fourth prosecution witness in the main trial. The officer testified that the six defendants were calm, fully aware of their constitutional rights and not denied access to legal representation before they made their statements. He asserted that the interrogations complied with the Administration of Criminal Justice Act 2015 and followed standard operating procedures.
According to the witness, each suspect was cautioned on their right to remain silent and their right to counsel, was placed in a ventilated room and was informed that any statement could later be used in court. Video recordings of the interviews, he said, showed no signs of intimidation, coercion or inducement. The similarity between the oral recordings and the written statements, he argued, reinforced the conclusion that the accounts were made voluntarily.
The prosecution submitted the six written statements – labelled Exhibits A through F – together with a black external hard drive and a flash drive purportedly containing the video recordings. Defence counsel raised no objections to the admissibility of the devices, which were entered into evidence as Exhibits G, G1, H and H1.
When questioned about the procedural details, the witness acknowledged that he was not a member of the Special Investigative Panel (SIP) but had participated intermittently in the investigation. He confirmed that some video recordings and written statements were made on different dates, yet maintained that the timing did not affect their voluntariness. The witness also admitted that no lawyers, civil‑society observers or Justices of the Peace were present during the recordings, although each suspect was informed of his right to counsel and chose not to request one at the time.
Defence lawyers highlighted several inconsistencies, including discrepancies in recording dates, the absence of lawyers during interrogations, and the lack of footage showing defendants physically writing their statements. The prosecution’s witness dismissed these concerns, insisting that the investigative process was transparent and adhered to military and constitutional safeguards.
The hearing concluded with the court adjourning the trial‑within‑trial to 13 May 2026 for further examination of the evidence on voluntariness.
The auxiliary proceeding is pivotal because the admissibility of the statements will determine whether the primary case can proceed on the substantive charges of treason and conspiracy. Observers note that a ruling on the voluntariness of the confessions could set an important precedent for the treatment of detainee statements in Nigeria’s security prosecutions. The next hearing is expected to focus on cross‑examination of additional witnesses and further scrutiny of the evidentiary material.
