A Federal High Court in Abuja on Tuesday commenced a trial-within-trial in the ongoing prosecution of six individuals accused of plotting to overthrow the government. The special proceeding aims to determine whether the defendants' extra-judicial statements were made voluntarily or through coercion, torture, or inducement, as alleged by the defense.
The trial judge cautioned both parties to confine arguments strictly to the issue of voluntariness and avoid delving into substantive matters already pending in the main trial. The prosecution, led by Director of Public Prosecution Rotimi Oyedepo, informed the court that three witnesses had been lined up for the trial-within-trial and subsequently called its first witness, an officer of the Nigerian Army Corps of Military Police, who also serves as the fourth prosecution witness in the substantive case.
The witness testified that the defendants were calm, composed, and fully aware of their constitutional rights before making their statements. He maintained that the investigation complied with standard operating procedures and the provisions of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act. The prosecution tendered statements allegedly obtained from the six defendants by the Special Investigative Panel (SIP) and the Military Police. Statements linked to the first to fifth defendants were admitted as Exhibits A to E, while that of the sixth defendant was admitted as Exhibit F. The court also admitted a black external hard drive and a flash drive containing video recordings of the defendants' statements, alongside certificates of identification, as Exhibits G, G1, H, and H1, respectively, after defense counsel raised no objections.
The witness repeatedly insisted that none of the defendants was denied access to legal representation and that all suspects were informed of their constitutional rights, including the right to remain silent and the right to engage counsel of their choice. Regarding the first defendant, a retired senior military officer, the witness described him as calm and cooperative throughout the interrogation process. According to the witness, the defendant was kept in a properly ventilated room, cautioned about his rights, and informed that whatever statement he made could later be tendered in court. The witness further told the court that the video recordings showed no evidence of intimidation, coercion, or inducement, adding that the consistency between the oral interviews and written statements reinforced the claim that the statements were voluntarily made. Responding to allegations that the written statements did not exactly correspond with the recorded interviews, the witness explained that written accounts could not be expected to reproduce oral interviews word-for-word because human beings are not computers. He also maintained that investigators employed modern investigative techniques and had no reason to compel suspects to make statements against their will.
On the second defendant, identified as Captain Erasmus, the witness stated that the officer voluntarily chose to reduce his oral account into writing after making verbal statements during the recorded session. He denied allegations that the defendant was pressured into pleading for clemency, insisting that all statements were freely made. Regarding the third defendant, a police inspector, the witness dismissed allegations of torture and coercion, telling the court that the video recordings showed the defendant calm and relaxed throughout the interview process. He also rejected suggestions that the defendant might have been restrained outside the camera frame, arguing that the length and nature of the recording showed no indication of force or intimidation. On the fourth defendant, identified as Umoru Zekeri, the witness said he was surprised by claims that the statement was involuntary, insisting that the defendant freely disclosed events and locations allegedly known only to him. The witness equally testified that the fifth defendant, Bukar Kashim Goni, willingly made his statement after being informed of his rights and deciding to present his own account of events. Concerning the sixth defendant, the prosecution witness told the court that an interpreter was provided after the suspect indicated he could neither speak nor write English fluently. According to him, the suspect's statements were translated between Hausa and English in line with fair hearing requirements before being read back to him for confirmation.
During cross-examination by defense counsel, the witness admitted that he was not a member of the Special Investigative Panel but said 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 allegedly obtained by the SIP. Under further questioning, 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 provided 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. He, however, maintained that all defendants were informed of their rights to legal representation but did not request the presence of lawyers during interrogation. The witness also admitted that some defendants were not captured on video physically writing their statements, explaining that oral accounts were later reduced into writing and endorsed by the suspects after the contents were read back to them. Defense counsel confronted the witness with alleged discrepancies relating to dates of recordings, absence of lawyers during interrogations, lack of footage showing actual writing of statements, and the omission of cautionary words in some exhibits. The witness, however, insisted that the investigation process was transparent and conducted in line with military procedures and constitutional safeguards.
Following the proceedings, the court adjourned the matter till May 13, 2026, for continuation of the trial-within-trial.
