The Federal High Court sitting in Abuja has commenced a trial-within-trial in the ongoing prosecution of six persons accused of plotting to overthrow the government of president Bola Tinubu with the calling of the first witness to defend the voluntariness of extra-judicial statements made by the defendants.
The trial-within-trial is aimed at determining whether statements allegedly made by the defendants to military investigators were obtained voluntarily or under duress, coercion, or torture.
The trial judge, Justice Joyce Abdulmalik cautioned parties to restrict themselves to issues relating to voluntariness of the statements and avoid delving into substantive matters already pending in the main trial.
The prosecution led by the Director of Public Prosecution of the Federation Rotimi Oyedepo, SAN informed the court that it had three witnesses to testify during the trial-within-trial .
The first witness, an officer of the Nigerian Army Corps of Military Police, led in evidence told the court that the defendants were calm, unagitated and fully aware of their constitutional rights before making their statements.
He maintained that the investigation process complied with standard operating procedures and best investigative practices, with the statements of the six defendants tendered.
Statements of the 1st to 6th defendants were admitted as Exhibits.
The prosecution also tendered a black external hard drive and a flash drive said to contain video recordings of the defendants’ extra-judicial statements alongside certificates of identification.
Defence lawyers raised no objections to their admissibility
On allegations that the written statements did not correspond exactly with the recorded video interviews, the witness explained that written accounts could not be word-for-word reproductions of oral interviews because “human beings are not computers as military investigation team employed modern investigative techniques and had no reason to force suspects into making statements.
During cross-examination by defence counsel, the witness admitted that he was not a member of the Special Investigative Panel but 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 taken before the SIP.
Counsel to other defendants questioned the witness on discrepancies relating to dates of recordings, and the absence of their lawyers during interrogations.
Following the conclusion of the cross examination the court adjourned the matter till May 13, 2026, for continuation of the trial-within-trial.
