A Federal High Court in Abuja on Monday watched a video recording of the alleged confession of the sixth defendant in the ongoing trial of persons accused of conspiring to plot a coup against the President Bola Tinubu-led government.
In the video, the defendant, Sheikh Sani Abdulkadir, told
investigators he had warned the alleged plotters that the plan would fail and
that they would eventually be exposed.
The video was played during the continuation of trial with
the fourth prosecution witness, identified as PW4, still in the witness box.
In the recording previewed before the court, Abdulkadir, who
described himself as an Islamic cleric, said he knew the alleged ringleader,
one Colonel Ma’aji, for less than a year and was approached through a man
identified as Sanda for prayers concerning the alleged coup plot.
According to him, Sanda informed him that his “oga” intended
to stage a coup and needed spiritual prayers and divination regarding its
success.
Abdulkadir told investigators that after conducting prayers,
he informed them the operation would fail and that two persons would eventually
betray those involved.
He said a message was later relayed back to him through
Sanda requesting further prayers so that the two individuals would not betray
the group.
The defendant further stated that money was subsequently
sent to him for prayers and charity, while names of individuals allegedly
involved in the plot were also forwarded to him for inclusion in the prayers.
He said shortly after the prayers commenced, Sanda informed
him that Colonel Ma’aji had not been seen for four days, adding that he later
learnt through media reports that arrests had been made over an alleged coup
plot.
In the video, Abdulkadir maintained that the funds
transferred to him were not payments for supporting a coup but were meant for
prayers.
He also told investigators that he never reported the
alleged plot because he did not know who to report to, despite admitting that
he understood a coup to mean a military overthrow of government.
The defendant narrated that he was eventually arrested after
visiting the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission, EFCC, over restrictions
placed on his bank account.
According to him, he had gone to withdraw from the money
transferred to him when he discovered that the account had been flagged.
He said after contacting an EFCC deputy director, he was
invited to the commission’s office where he explained that the money was meant
for prayers.
Abdulkadir insisted in the recording that he did not make
any statement relating to a coup while in EFCC custody.
Before the video ended, the defendant also stated that
nobody assaulted or tortured him and that his statements were made voluntarily.
Following the playback, the prosecution sought to tender the
extra-judicial statements allegedly made by the 1st to 5th defendants before a
Special Investigation Panel and military police authorities, as well as the
sixth defendant’s statement made before military police investigators.
However, counsel to all six defendants separately objected
to the admissibility of the statements and accompanying video recordings.
Lawyers to the defendants argued that the statements were
either not voluntarily made or were obtained in violation of provisions of the
Administration of Criminal Justice Act, ACJA.
Counsel to the 1st defendant argued that the written
statement sought to be tendered did not correspond with what was shown in the
video evidence regarding voluntariness.
The second defendant’s lawyer contended that his client was
neither informed of his right to legal representation nor provided access to
counsel before the statement was recorded, adding that the video shown in court
was not a recording of the making of the written statement sought to be
tendered.
The third defendant equally challenged the admissibility of
the statement, arguing that the contents of the video differed from the written
extra-judicial statement.
Counsel to the fourth defendant argued that the video and
statement contravened Sections 15 and 17 of the ACJA, which provide for the
presence of legal representation during statement-taking.
He further alleged that his client was coerced into making
the statement and argued that the recording failed to show whether the
defendant’s legs were free at the time the video was made.
The fifth defendant’s lawyer also opposed the admissibility
of the statements on grounds of alleged inducement, torture and non-compliance
with provisions of the ACJA and the Evidence Act.
He further argued that since there were multiple defendants
in the matter, the court ought to conduct separate trial-within-trial
proceedings for each disputed statement rather than a joint exercise.
Counsel to the 6th defendant similarly objected to the
admissibility of both the written and video statements credited to Abdulkadir,
insisting they were obtained through inducement and were not voluntarily made.
Responding, the prosecution urged the court to reject the
defence arguments and order a single trial-within-trial proceeding for all the
disputed statements.
The prosecution argued that the law did not require separate
proceedings for each defendant and maintained that the trial judge retained
discretion over how evidence is received.
In a ruling, Justice Joyce Abdulmalik ordered a joint
trial-within-trial to determine the voluntariness and admissibility of both the
written and video statements of all six defendants.
The matter was subsequently adjourned to May 12, 2026, for
continuation of proceedings.
Advertise on NigerianEye.com to reach thousands of our daily users
No comments
Post a Comment
Kindly drop a comment below.
(Comments are moderated. Clean comments will be approved immediately)
Advert Enquires - Reach out to us at NigerianEye@gmail.com