Fidelia Soriwei, Abuja
Questions over how confessional statements were obtained took centre stage at the Federal High Court in Abuja on Tuesday as proceedings continued in the trial of six persons accused of plotting to overthrow the government of President Bola Tinubu.
The court commenced a trial-within-trial to determine whether statements allegedly made by the defendants to military investigators were voluntarily given or extracted through coercion, torture, inducement or intimidation as claimed by defence lawyers.
Justice Joyce Abdulmalik, who presided over the proceedings, directed both parties to limit arguments strictly to the issue of voluntariness and avoid delving into the substantive charges already before the court.
During the session, the prosecution tendered several written statements and digital materials linked to the defendants, all of which were admitted as exhibits without objection from defence counsel.
The exhibits included statements allegedly obtained from the six defendants by the Special Investigative Panel and the Military Police, alongside a black external hard drive and a flash drive said to contain video recordings of the interrogations.
The prosecution, led by Director of Public Prosecution of the Federation, Rotimi Oyedepo (SAN), opened its case in the trial-within-trial by presenting a military police officer as its first witness.
While giving evidence, the witness maintained that all the suspects were informed of their constitutional rights before making any statements and insisted that none of them was subjected to threats or pressure.
According to him, the interrogation process complied with the Administration of Criminal Justice Act, 2015, as well as standard investigative procedures.
He told the court that the defendants appeared calm during questioning and voluntarily chose to narrate their accounts to investigators.
Speaking on the first defendant, a retired Army General, the witness described him as composed throughout the interrogation process.
He said the defendant was informed that any statement made could later be used in court and added that he was held in a properly ventilated environment during questioning.
The witness gave similar testimony concerning other defendants, including Captain Erasmus, Inspector of Police and another defendant identified as Umoru Zekeri.
He also stated that one of the suspects who could not communicate fluently in English was provided with an interpreter to ensure fairness during the recording of statements.
According to the witness, oral interviews conducted in Hausa were translated into English before the contents were read back to the suspect for confirmation.
Attempting to counter allegations raised by the defence, the witness argued that the video recordings showed no signs of intimidation or coercion.
He further dismissed claims that differences between oral interviews and written statements suggested manipulation, telling the court that “human beings are not computers.”
Under cross-examination, however, the witness admitted that he was not a core member of the Special Investigative Panel and only participated intermittently in aspects of the investigation.
He also acknowledged that lawyers, civil society representatives and Justices of the Peace were absent when the statements were recorded.
The witness further confirmed that some video recordings and written statements were produced on different dates and admitted that certain videos did not capture the actual writing of statements by the defendants.
Defence lawyers questioned the credibility of the investigative process, citing inconsistencies relating to dates, absence of legal representation during interrogations and lack of video evidence showing the statements being written.
Despite the challenges raised, the prosecution witness maintained that the investigation complied with constitutional safeguards and military procedures.
At the end of proceedings, Justice Abdulmalik adjourned the matter until May 13, 2026, for continuation of the trial-within-trial.
