Tension and confusion have reportedly engulfed the ongoing secret court martial of military officers accused of plotting a coup against President Bola Tinubu’s administration, as defence lawyers intensify objections over what they describe as inconsistent and “recycled” charges.

Sources familiar with the proceedings say the session became heated after defence counsel openly challenged the military prosecution, accusing it of repeatedly altering and withdrawing charges in a manner they argue undermines the credibility of the case.

According to insiders, the prosecution has allegedly presented multiple versions of the charges at different stages of the hearing, raising questions among defence lawyers about the coherence and legal foundation of the allegations against the detained officers.

The defence team further argued that the case involves constitutional offences such as treason and alleged attempts to overthrow the government, which they insist fall under the jurisdiction of civilian courts rather than a closed military tribunal.

Lawyers representing the accused officers also questioned attempts by military authorities to reframe the allegations as “mutiny” in order to justify trial under a court martial, describing the move as an improper substitution of civilian criminal charges with military offences.

Observers reportedly present at the proceedings also raised concerns over the secrecy of the trial, calling for greater transparency and access for journalists, civil society organisations, diplomats, and independent monitors to ensure public confidence in the process.

Human rights advocates and constitutional lawyers have similarly criticised the structure of the proceedings, arguing that the military should not act simultaneously as investigator, prosecutor, and adjudicator in a case involving serious allegations of treason.

They further maintain that the legal framework being used could raise fair hearing concerns, especially given constitutional provisions that assign jurisdiction over treason-related offences to the Federal High Court.

Senior advocates, including human rights lawyer Femi Falana (SAN), have previously called for the suspension of military proceedings, insisting that such cases should be handled strictly within the civilian judicial system to avoid constitutional breaches and inconsistencies in prosecution.

The controversy has continued to fuel wider debate over transparency in military justice processes and the appropriate legal forum for handling sensitive national security allegations involving serving officers.