The Federal High Court sitting in Abuja has fixed December 7, 2026, to deliver a ruling in the trial-within-trial being conducted to determine whether statements and video recordings obtained from six defendants standing trial over an alleged plot to overthrow the Federal Government should be admitted in evidence.
Justice Joyce Abdulmalik fixed the date on Wednesday after counsel for the Federal Government and lawyers representing the defendants adopted their written addresses and presented arguments for and against the admissibility of the disputed evidence.
The ruling will determine whether the statements attributed to the defendants and video recordings of their interrogations were voluntarily made and can consequently be used as evidence when the substantive criminal trial resumes. The trial-within-trial does not determine the defendants’ guilt or innocence on the substantive charges.
The Federal Government, through the Office of the Attorney-General of the Federation, arraigned the six defendants on April 22, 2026, on a 13-count charge marked FHC/ABJ/CR/206/2026. The charge was filed on April 20 by the Director of Public Prosecutions of the Federation, Rotimi Oyedepo, SAN.
Those standing trial are retired Major-General Mohammed Ibrahim Gana, retired Navy Captain Erasmus Ochegobia Victor, serving Police Inspector Ahmed Ibrahim, Zekeri Umoru, Bukar Kashim Goni and Abdulkadir Sani.
Former Minister of State for Petroleum Resources and former Bayelsa State Governor Timipre Sylva is also mentioned in the charge and listed by the prosecution as being at large. The allegations against him and the six defendants remain unproven and are subject to determination by the court.
The defendants are accused of offences including alleged treason, terrorism, failure to disclose security intelligence and money laundering linked to alleged terrorism financing. They pleaded not guilty when arraigned.
Justice Abdulmalik ordered the trial-within-trial on May 11 after defence counsel objected to the prosecution’s attempt to tender statements and video recordings said to contain the defendants’ accounts during investigations.
The defence lawyers argued that the statements were not voluntarily made and should therefore not be admitted as evidence.
The objection arose after the prosecution had called four witnesses in the substantive case.
The fourth prosecution witness, an army officer whose identity has been protected with the codename “AAA” for security reasons, had tendered video recordings said to contain interrogations of the defendants before the trial-within-trial commenced. The witness has not yet been discharged from the witness box.
The Federal Government subsequently closed its case in the trial-within-trial on June 23, after which the defendants began presenting evidence challenging the voluntariness of the statements on June 25.
The proceedings were later delayed by a dispute concerning the interpretation of testimony given in Hausa by the sixth defendant, Abdulkadir Sani.
His counsel, Sanusi Musa, SAN, had complained that interpreters used during the proceedings were not accurately translating his client’s evidence into English.
Justice Abdulmalik consequently directed the parties to provide a neutral interpreter familiar with the defendant’s specific linguistic background, stressing that an interpreter owed a duty both to the witness and the court.
After the defendants eventually concluded their evidence in the separate admissibility proceedings, the court fixed Wednesday for the adoption of final written addresses.
At Wednesday’s proceedings, prosecution counsel Maryam Okorie and lawyers for the defendants adopted their respective processes and advanced arguments on whether the contested statements and video evidence should form part of the prosecution’s case.
Justice Abdulmalik thereafter reserved her ruling until December 7.
Part of the disputed evidence includes a video recording involving the fourth defendant, Zekeri Umoru, an employee of Julius Berger Nigeria Plc who worked in the Maintenance Department at the Presidential Villa.
In the video played before the court, Umoru was reported to have told investigators that discussions took place about switching off electricity supply to the Presidential Villa as part of the alleged plot.
According to his recorded account, he warned that cutting the power supply would immediately trigger an investigation and could result in workers who were on duty being detained.
Umoru was also reported to have alleged that Colonel Mohammed Ma’aji, whom investigators described as an alleged mastermind of the purported plot, offered him money through Inspector Ahmed Ibrahim, the third defendant, to recruit between 18 and 19 people working inside the Presidential Villa.
The potential recruits, according to the account attributed to Umoru, were said to include soldiers, SSS personnel and Julius Berger employees.
Umoru further alleged in the recorded interrogation that Ma’aji wanted access to the Presidential Villa and had said he could gain entry “with force” if those recruited from within refused to cooperate.
Other accounts of the proceedings reported that Umoru told investigators he became uncomfortable with the alleged arrangement and attempted to return money said to have been given to him. Those statements form part of evidence whose voluntariness has been challenged and should not be treated as findings of fact by the court.
The sixth defendant, Sheikh Abdulkadir Sani, a Zaria-based Islamic cleric, was also shown in video evidence giving an account to investigators.
According to the recorded account presented by the prosecution, Sani said he was informed about the alleged plot and was recruited to pray against information about the activities of those allegedly involved becoming exposed.
He was reported to have said that he warned the others that the plan would fail and that those involved would eventually be discovered.
Sani is among the defendants contesting the circumstances under which statements attributed to them were obtained.
The evidential dispute is significant because a ruling in favour of the prosecution would permit the contested statements and recordings to form part of the evidence to be considered in the substantive trial, while a finding that any of the statements was not made voluntarily could affect its admissibility.
The main trial itself had commenced on an accelerated basis following the defendants’ arraignment. Justice Abdulmalik had earlier directed that the case be given speedy hearing.
The substantive allegations include the prosecution’s claim that the defendants conspired to levy war against the Federal Republic of Nigeria with the object of overthrowing the government. The charge cites, among other provisions, Section 37(2) of the Criminal Code in relation to the alleged treason offence.
The defendants have denied the allegations and pleaded not guilty.
.. “Court Fixes December 7 To Rule On Admissibility Of Statements, Videos In Alleged Coup Trial” — Prosecution, Defence Close Trial-Within-Trial Arguments … NewsNGR.
