A General Court Martial sitting at the Scorpion Officers’ Mess, Asokoro, Abuja, has fixed Monday, October 5, for its ruling on the admissibility of statements made by the officers accused of coup plotting.
The ruling, which was earlier scheduled for Wednesday, September 30, 2026, was fixed for Monday by the court, which was presided over by H.I. Alhaji, an Air Vice Marshal in the Nigerian Air Force.
Daily Trust reports that some of the serving military officers, who were alleged to have plotted to overthrow the government of President Bola Tinubu, are being tried for the alleged offence.
A notice issued to members of the court and other concerned parties on Wednesday said the sitting, earlier adjourned to Wednesday, had been postponed.
The notice, signed by the Liaison Officer, Major M.U. Ardo, did not give reasons for the latest postponement but expressed regret over the inconvenience caused.
‘The GCM sitting earlier adjourned to Wednesday, 30 September, 2026, has now been postponed to Monday, 5 October, 2026.
‘The new sitting is scheduled to commence at 10 am at the Scorpion Officers’ Mess, Asokoro, Abuja,’ the notice, a copy of which was obtained by Daily Trust, stated.
Checks showed that the ruling is expected to determine whether statements allegedly obtained from some of the accused officers can be admitted as evidence in the ongoing trial.
The defence had challenged the admissibility of the statements, alleging that some of the officers were coerced by officials of the Defence Intelligence Agency into making or reproducing statements containing information they described as false.
The dispute over the statements led to a trial-within-trial, during which the defence called evidence to challenge the circumstances in which the statements were obtained.
Defence lawyers argued that the statements failed to meet the legal requirements for admissibility.
Among other things, they alleged that lawyers or witnesses chosen by some of the accused were not present when the statements were made.
The defence also questioned the absence of video recordings showing some of the 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 further alleged that some of the accused officers were neither properly cautioned nor adequately informed of their rights before making the statements.
The prosecution, however, presented evidence aimed at establishing that the statements were made voluntarily and without improper pressure.
Some of the accused officers gave contrary accounts during the trial-within-a-trial, alleging that they were subjected to coercion, intimidation, inducement and physical abuse while in detention.