admin
The Federal High Court in Abuja on Tuesday admitted as exhibits the extra-judicial statements of six persons standing trial over an alleged plot to overthrow the government of President Bola Tinubu, as the court commenced a trial-within-trial to determine whether the statements were voluntarily made.
Justice Joyce Abdulmalik admitted the statements and video recordings during proceedings aimed at resolving objections raised by the defendants over the admissibility of the evidence.
The defendants had earlier challenged the statements, alleging that they were obtained through coercion, torture, inducement and in violation of provisions of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act and the Anti-Torture Act.
The Federal Government is prosecuting Maj-Gen Mohammed Ibrahim Gana (retd); Navy Capt Erasmus Victor (retd); police inspector Ahmed Ibrahim; Presidential Villa electrician Umoru Zekeri; Bukar Kashim Goni; and a Zaria-based Islamic cleric, Sheikh Abdulkadir Sani, on charges bordering on treason, terrorism and conspiracy to stage a coup.
At the previous proceedings, the court played a video recording in which Sani allegedly told investigators that he warned the suspected plotters that the coup plan “would fail” and that members of the group would eventually betray themselves.
Following objections by defence lawyers to the admissibility of the defendants’ statements, Justice Abdulmalik ordered a joint trial-within-trial to determine whether the statements were voluntarily made.
At Tuesday’s proceedings, the judge cautioned parties to restrict themselves strictly to issues relating to voluntariness and avoid delving into substantive matters reserved for the main trial.
The Director of Public Prosecutions of the Federation, Rotimi Oyedepo (SAN), who led the prosecution, informed the court that the prosecution had three witnesses lined up for the trial-within-trial.
He subsequently called the first witness, an officer of the Nigerian Army Corps of Military Police, who is also the fourth prosecution witness in the substantive trial.
Led in evidence, the witness told the court that all the defendants were calm, aware of their constitutional rights and not subjected to any form of intimidation before making their statements.
According to him, the investigation complied with standard operating procedures and safeguards contained in the ACJA.
The prosecution thereafter tendered the statements allegedly obtained from the six defendants by the Special Investigative Panel and the Military Police.
The court admitted the statements of the first to fifth defendants as Exhibits A to E, while the statement of the sixth defendant was admitted as Exhibit F.
Justice Abdulmalik also admitted a black external hard drive, a flash drive and accompanying certificates of identification as Exhibits G, G1, H and H1 after defence lawyers raised no objections to their admissibility during the trial-within-trial.
While being led in evidence, the witness repeatedly maintained that none of the defendants was denied access to legal representation.
He told the court that all the suspects were informed of their constitutional rights, including the right to remain silent and the right to engage lawyers of their choice.
Speaking on the first defendant, Maj-Gen Gana (retd), the witness described him as “a highly respected senior military officer” who remained calm throughout the interrogation process.
According to the witness, the retired general was placed in a well-ventilated room and cautioned that any statement he made could later be used in court as his version of events.
The witness further argued that the video recordings showed no sign of coercion, intimidation or inducement.
He added that similarities between the oral interviews and written statements supported the claim that the statements were voluntarily made.
Responding to allegations that the written statements did not correspond exactly with the recorded interviews, the witness said, “Human beings are not computers.”
He explained that written statements could not amount to word-for-word reproductions of oral interviews.
On the second defendant, identified as Navy Capt Erasmus (retd), the witness stated that the retired naval officer voluntarily chose to reduce his oral statement into writing after participating in the recorded interview.
He denied allegations that the defendant was pressured into pleading for clemency.
Regarding the third defendant, a police inspector, the witness rejected claims of torture and coercion, insisting that the defendant appeared calm and relaxed throughout the recorded interview.
He also dismissed suggestions that the defendant could have been restrained outside the camera frame.
The witness expressed surprise over allegations by the fourth defendant, Umoru Zekeri, that his statement was involuntary, maintaining that the defendant freely narrated events and locations allegedly known only to him.
He also testified that the fifth defendant, Goni, willingly gave his statement after being informed of his rights.
Concerning the sixth defendant, Sheikh Sani, the witness stated that an interpreter was provided after the cleric informed investigators that he could neither speak nor write English fluently.
According to him, the suspect’s statements were translated between Hausa and English before being read back to him for confirmation.
However, under cross-examination by defence lawyers, the witness admitted that he was not a member of the Special Investigative Panel but only participated intermittently in the investigation.
He also acknowledged that the video recordings shown in court related only to statements made before the military police and not those obtained by the SIP.
The witness further admitted that none of the statements bore endorsements by legal practitioners and that no lawyers, civil society representatives or Justices of the Peace were present during the interrogations.
He, however, maintained that all the defendants were informed of their rights to legal representation but chose not to request lawyers.
The matter was adjourned till May 13 for continuation of the trial-within-trial proceedings.
