The General Court Martial hearing the alleged coup plot involving some Nigerian military officers has again deferred its ruling on the admissibility of statements tendered by the accused persons.
The ruling, which was expected on Wednesday, September 30, 2026, will now be delivered on Monday, October 5.
The court, presided over by Air Vice Marshal H.I. Alhaji of the Nigerian Air Force, is sitting at the Scorpion Officers’ Mess, Asokoro, Abuja.
A notice circulated to members of the court and other parties in the case announced the change in date.
‘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 stated.
The notice was signed by the Liaison Officer, Maj. M.U. Ardo, who did not disclose the reason for the postponement but expressed regret over the inconvenience caused.
Monday’s proceedings will mark the fourth time the court has deferred its ruling on the issue.
The decision is significant to the ongoing trial because it will determine whether statements allegedly made by some of the accused officers can be admitted as evidence.
The defence has challenged the statements, alleging that some of the officers were subjected to coercion by officials of the Defence Intelligence Agency and made to reproduce statements containing information they regarded as false.
The dispute prompted a trial-within-trial in which the defence presented evidence challenging the circumstances surrounding the taking of the statements.
Defence counsel argued that the statements did not satisfy the legal conditions required for them to be admitted in evidence. They also alleged that lawyers or witnesses selected by some of the accused were not present when the statements were made.
The defence further questioned the absence of video recordings showing some of the officers writing their statements in the presence of their chosen witnesses, as required by relevant provisions of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act.
The lawyers also alleged that some of the accused were not properly cautioned or adequately informed of their rights before making the statements.
The prosecution, however, led evidence to establish that the statements were made voluntarily and without improper pressure.
During the trial-within-trial, some of the accused officers gave accounts that differed sharply from the prosecution’s position, alleging that they were subjected to coercion, intimidation, inducement and physical abuse while in detention.
Some of the officers told the court that they were made to believe that reproducing particular statements would help secure their release.
They further alleged that intelligence officials had prepared some of the statements beforehand and that they were compelled to copy or sign documents containing matters they claimed not to know.
Some also maintained that they did not personally originate or write the statements attributed to them, alleging that they were forced to reproduce pre-written documents containing claims or admissions they considered false or outside their knowledge.
The court’s eventual ruling will determine whether the disputed statements can form part of the prosecution’s evidence in the substantive proceedings.
The latest postponement therefore prolongs the court’s consideration of a central evidentiary issue in the trial.
The case concerns allegations that some military officers conspired to overthrow the government of President Bola Tinubu on October 1, 2025.
Following investigations by military authorities, the officers were arrested and subsequently arraigned before the General Court Martial in Abuja.
The accused officers have denied the allegations. Their trial has also been marked by disputes over the circumstances surrounding the statements attributed to them, particularly the defence allegations of coercion and other forms of improper treatment.