A Federal High Court in Abuja has commenced a trial-within-trial in the case involving six persons accused of plotting to overthrow the Nigerian government, with prosecutors seeking to prove that statements obtained from the defendants were made voluntarily.
The special proceeding, which began on Tuesday, is aimed at determining whether the extra-judicial statements allegedly obtained by military investigators were freely given or extracted through coercion, torture or inducement, as claimed by defence lawyers.
At the start of proceedings, the trial judge directed both parties to limit their arguments strictly to the issue of voluntariness and avoid discussing substantive matters already before the court in the main trial.
Leading the prosecution, Director of Public Prosecution, Rotimi Oyedepo, told the court that three witnesses had been prepared to testify during the trial-within-trial.
The prosecution then 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 trial.
While giving evidence, the witness said the defendants were calm, composed and fully aware of their constitutional rights before making their statements.
He maintained that investigators complied with standard operating procedures and provisions of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act throughout the process.
The prosecution subsequently tendered statements allegedly obtained from the six defendants by the Special Investigative Panel and the Military Police.
Statements linked to the first to fifth defendants were admitted as Exhibits A to E, while the sixth defendant’s statement was admitted as Exhibit F.
The court also admitted a black external hard drive and a flash drive said to contain video recordings of the defendants’ statements, alongside certificates of identification, as Exhibits G, G1, H and H1.
The witness insisted repeatedly 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.
Speaking on the first defendant, described as a retired senior military officer, the witness said he remained calm and cooperative during interrogation.
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.
He also told the court that video recordings showed no sign of intimidation, coercion or inducement, adding that consistency between oral interviews and written statements supported the claim that the statements were voluntary.
Responding to allegations that the written statements did not correspond exactly with recorded interviews, the witness argued that written accounts could not reproduce oral interviews word-for-word because “human beings are not computers.”
On the second defendant, identified as Captain Erasmus, the witness said the officer voluntarily chose to reduce his oral account into writing after making verbal statements during recorded interviews.
He denied allegations that the defendant was pressured into pleading for clemency.
Regarding the third defendant, a police inspector, the witness rejected claims of torture and coercion, saying video recordings showed the defendant calm and relaxed throughout questioning.
He also dismissed suggestions that the defendant may have been restrained outside the camera frame.
On the fourth defendant, identified as Umoru Zekeri, the witness said he was surprised by claims that the statement was involuntary, insisting the defendant freely disclosed events and locations allegedly known only to him.
The witness further testified that the fifth defendant, Bukar Kashim Goni, willingly made his statement after being informed of his rights.
Concerning the sixth defendant, the witness said an interpreter was provided after the suspect indicated he could neither speak nor write English fluently.
According to him, the statements were translated between Hausa and English before being read back to the suspect for confirmation.
During cross-examination, the witness admitted he was not a member of the Special Investigative Panel but participated intermittently in the investigation.
He also acknowledged that the video recordings presented in court related only to statements made before the Military Police and not those allegedly obtained by the Special Investigative Panel.
Under questioning by defence counsel, the witness admitted that some recordings and written statements were made on different dates but argued that this did not affect voluntariness if the statements were freely made.
He further confirmed that none of the statements tendered in court bore endorsements by legal practitioners and that no lawyers, civil society representatives or Justices of the Peace were present during interrogations.
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 after being read back to the suspects.
Defence lawyers confronted the witness with alleged discrepancies involving recording dates, absence of lawyers during interrogations, lack of footage showing the writing of statements and omission of cautionary words in some exhibits.
However, the witness maintained that the investigation process was transparent and conducted in line with military procedures and constitutional safeguards.
The court subsequently adjourned the matter until May 13, 2026, for continuation of the trial-within-trial.
