The Federal Government has secured a significant evidential advantage in the trial of six men accused of plotting to overthrow President Bola Tinubu’s administration, after a Federal High Court in Abuja admitted their interrogation statements and video recordings as evidence, ruling that the materials were not shown to have been obtained through coercion.
Justice Joyce Abdulmalik delivered the ruling on Thursday, November 5, at the end of a trial-within-trial initiated to determine whether the defendants voluntarily made the statements and participated in the recorded interrogations.
The judge dismissed claims that military investigators tortured, threatened, induced or otherwise forced the accused men to provide confessional statements. She found no evidence of duress and characterised the allegations of coercion as an afterthought and unbelievable.
The decision removes a major obstacle to the prosecution’s attempt to rely on the disputed materials. It does not, however, amount to a finding that the alleged coup plot took place or that any of the defendants is guilty. The prosecution must still establish the charges against each accused person, while the defence retains the opportunity to challenge the weight and reliability of the evidence during the substantive trial.
The six defendants are retired Major General Mohammed Gana, retired Navy Captain Erasmus Victor, Inspector Ahmed Ibrahim, Zekeri Umoru, Bukar Goni and Abdulkadir Sani.
The Federal Government, acting through the Office of the Attorney-General of the Federation, arraigned them on April 22 on a 13-count charge. The allegations include treason, terrorism, failure to disclose security intelligence and money laundering linked to terrorism financing.
The proceedings over the disputed statements began after defence counsel challenged their admissibility, alleging that military personnel had obtained them through improper pressure.
Justice Abdulmalik ordered a separate hearing on May 11 to examine the circumstances surrounding the interrogations before deciding whether the prosecution could tender the materials in the main case.
RELATED NEWS:
Four prosecution witnesses testified during that exercise. The fourth witness, an Army officer identified by the codename “AAA”, had earlier presented video recordings of the defendants’ interrogations before the court commenced the trial-within-trial.
The distinction is important. Under criminal procedure, a statement alleged to have been extracted through force or intimidation cannot simply be accepted because investigators recorded it or the accused appeared to make it.
The court must first determine whether it was voluntarily obtained. Thursday’s ruling settled that preliminary question in the prosecution’s favour, allowing the statements and recordings to enter the evidential record.
The next stage will test what those materials actually establish, how they relate to the 13-count charge and whether the prosecution can corroborate its allegations with other evidence.
Justice Abdulmalik adjourned the case until December 7 and 10 for continuation of the trial.
The ruling therefore marks a procedural victory for the Federal Government, not the conclusion of the case. The central question of whether the six men participated in a conspiracy against the government is still before the court.
For More News Updates, Visit New Daily Prime News
