A Federal High Court in Abuja, yesterday, commenced a trial-within-trial in the ongoing prosecution of six persons accused of plotting to overthrow the Bola Tinubu government, as the prosecution opened evidence to establish that the defendants’ extra-judicial statements were voluntarily made.
  
The special proceeding is to determine whether statements allegedly obtained from the defendants by military investigators were made freely or extracted through coercion, torture or inducement, as alleged by the defence.
  
At the outset of proceedings, the trial judge cautioned both parties to confine arguments strictly to the issue of voluntariness and avoid delving into substantive matters already pending before the court in the main trial.
  
The prosecution, led by Director of Public Prosecution (DPP), Rotimi Oyedepo, informed the court that three witnesses had been lined up for the trial-within-trial and subsequently called its first witness, an officer of the Nigerian Army Corps of Military Police, who also serves as the fourth prosecution witness in the substantive case.
  
While being led in evidence, the witness told the court that the defendants were calm, composed and fully aware of their constitutional rights before making their statements. 
  
He maintained that the investigation complied with standard operating procedures and the provisions of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act (ACJA).
  
The prosecution, thereafter, tendered statements allegedly obtained from the six defendants by the Special Investigative Panel (SIP) and the Military Police.
  
Statements linked to the 1st to 5th defendants were admitted as Exhibits A to E, while that of the 6th defendant was admitted as Exhibit F.
  
The court also admitted a black external hard drive and a flash drive said to contain video recordings of the defendants’ statements, alongside certificates of identification, as Exhibits G, G1, H and H1, after defence counsel did not object to their admissibility during the proceeding.
  
The witness repeatedly insisted that none of the defendants was denied access to legal representation and that all suspects were informed of their constitutional rights, including the right to remain silent and the right to engage counsel of their choice.
  
Speaking of the 1st defendant, a retired senior military officer, the witness described him as calm and cooperative throughout the interrogation process.
  
According to him, the defendant was kept in a properly ventilated room, cautioned about his rights and informed that whatever statement he made could later be tendered in court.
  
The witness further told the court that the video recordings showed no evidence of intimidation, coercion or inducement, adding that the consistency between the oral interviews and written statements reinforced the claim that the statements were voluntarily made.
  
Responding to allegations that the written statements did not exactly correspond with the recorded interviews, the witness explained that written accounts could not be expected to reproduce oral interviews word-for-word because “human beings are not computers.”
  
Defence counsel confronted the witness with alleged discrepancies relating to dates of recordings, absence of lawyers during interrogations, lack of footage showing actual writing of statements and the omission of cautionary words in some exhibits.
  
The witness, however, insisted that the investigation process was transparent and conducted in line with military procedures and constitutional safeguards.
  
Following the proceedings, the court adjourned the matter till May 13, 2026, for continuation of the trial-within-trial.