The General Court Martial (GCM) trying Nigerian military officers accused of plotting to overthrow President Bola Tinubu is set to deliver its ruling on the admissibility of statements allegedly obtained from the accused officers amid allegations that officials of the Defence Intelligence Agency (DIA) coerced some of them into making or reproducing false statements.
The ruling is scheduled for Wednesday, September 30, 2026, following a trial-within-a-trial conducted by the court to determine whether the statements made by the accused officers were obtained voluntarily and whether they can be admitted as evidence in the ongoing proceedings.
The General Court Martial is presided over by Air Vice Marshal H. I. Alhaji (NAF/2211).
The proceedings are being held at the Scorpion Officers’ Mess in Asokoro, Abuja.
The trial-within-a-trial was conducted over several weeks after defence lawyers objected to the admission of statements tendered by the prosecution.
The defence argued that the statements did not meet the legal requirements for admissibility, alleging, among other things, that lawyers or witnesses chosen by the accused officers were not present when the statements were taken.
The defence further argued that video recordings were not made to show the accused officers writing their statements in the presence of their chosen witnesses, as required under relevant provisions of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act.
The lawyers also challenged the circumstances under which the statements were obtained, arguing that some of the accused officers were not properly cautioned or adequately informed of their rights before they made the statements.
During the trial-within-a-trial, the prosecution presented evidence aimed at establishing that the statements were made voluntarily and without improper pressure.
However, some of the accused officers gave evidence disputing this account and stating that they were subjected to coercion, intimidation, inducement and physical abuse by officials of the DIA.
According to testimony presented during the proceedings, some of the officers stated that they were led to believe that making particular statements would secure their release from detention.
The officers further explained that statements had already been prepared by intelligence officials and that they were subsequently compelled to reproduce or sign the documents, despite having no knowledge of some of the matters contained in them.
Some of the accused officers also told the court that they did not personally originate or write the statements attributed to them.
They said that they were forced to copy pre-written statements which contained allegations or admissions they claimed were false or unrelated to their knowledge.
The allegations included claims of various forms of intimidation and physical abuse during the period in which the statements were allegedly obtained.
According to evidence attributed to some of the accused officers, Lt. Col. C. C. Chima and Capt. O. E. Ukpong were among the officials allegedly involved in the process, purportedly acting on the instructions of Brig. Gen. Nicholas Ashinze, described during the proceedings as a senior military intelligence officer and Director of Operations at the DIA.
The allegations formed part of the evidence considered by the General Court Martial during the trial-within-a-trial.
The prosecution, however, presented evidence intended to establish that the statements were voluntarily made by the accused officers.
The court is therefore expected to determine, based on the evidence presented during the trial-within-a-trial, whether the prosecution has established the voluntariness of the statements and whether they satisfy the applicable legal requirements for admission.
The ruling was initially scheduled for Wednesday, September 23, 2026, but the court has since adjourned the delivery of the ruling three times.
Sources familiar with the proceedings told SaharaReporters that the repeated delays had raised concerns in some quarters, particularly given the significance of the ruling to the ongoing trial.
Defence counsel had also previously raised concerns during the proceedings about whether the accused officers would receive a fair hearing.
The lawyers reportedly expressed concerns about the possibility of external interference in the proceedings and the eventual judgment of the court.
The concerns came against the backdrop of the prosecution’s reliance on the disputed statements and the defence’s contention that the circumstances under which the documents were obtained rendered them inadmissible.
The General Court Martial comprises senior officers drawn from the three services of the Nigerian Armed Forces.
Members of the panel include Maj. Gen. U. T. Opuene, Maj. Gen. I. B. Abubakar, Maj. Gen. N. U. C. Ogili, Maj. Gen. S. A. Emmanuel, Maj. Gen. F. U. Mijinyawa, Rear Adm. D. M. Ndanusa, Rear Adm. M. K. Igwe, Air Vice Marshal M. I. Isah, Air Vice Marshal A. O. Kotun and Air Vice Marshal M. M. Omar.
The Judge Advocate is Lt. Col. A. Mohammed.
The officers facing trial are accused of plotting to overthrow the Tinubu administration, allegations which they are contesting in the military court.
The admissibility of the statements is considered a significant stage in the proceedings because the prosecution tendered the documents as part of the evidence against the accused officers.
The defence has maintained that the circumstances surrounding the statements must be examined before the court can rely on them as evidence.
The trial-within-a-trial was consequently convened specifically to resolve the dispute over whether the statements were made voluntarily.
During the proceedings, the defence placed particular emphasis on the absence of legal representation or witnesses selected by the accused officers during the taking of the statements.
The defence also challenged the failure to record the process on video, arguing that such recording was necessary to demonstrate the circumstances in which the statements were made.
(SaharaReporters)
