The General Court Martial hearing the alleged coup plot involving some military officers has again postponed its ruling on whether statements attributed to the accused can be admitted as evidence.
The ruling, which was expected on Wednesday, September 30, 2026, will now be delivered on Monday, October 5.
The court, headed by Air Vice Marshal H.I. Alhaji of the Nigerian Air Force, is sitting at the Scorpion Officers’ Mess in Asokoro, Abuja.
A notice circulated to members of the court and other parties on Wednesday confirmed the latest adjournment.
“The GCM sitting earlier adjourned to Wednesday, 30 September, 2026, has now been postponed to Monday, 5 October, 2026.
“The new sitting is scheduled to commence at 10am at the Scorpion Officers’ Mess, Asokoro, Abuja,” the notice stated.
The notice was signed by the Liaison Officer, Major M.U. Ardo. It did not disclose the reason for the postponement but expressed regret over the inconvenience caused.
Wednesday’s development represents the fourth postponement of the ruling, prolonging a significant evidentiary dispute in the trial.
At the centre of the dispute are statements allegedly made by some of the accused officers, whose admissibility has been challenged by the defence.
Defence counsel have alleged that officials of the Defence Intelligence Agency subjected some of the officers to pressure and coercion to make or reproduce statements containing information they considered false.
READ ALSO: Anyone Plotting Coup Wasting Their Time — Defence Minister
The disagreement over the circumstances surrounding the statements resulted in a trial-within-trial, allowing the defence to present evidence challenging how the documents were obtained.
The defence has maintained that the statements did not satisfy the legal conditions required for their admission.
Among the issues raised was an allegation that lawyers or witnesses selected by some of the accused were not present when the statements were recorded.
Defence lawyers also questioned why video recordings were not produced to show some of the accused writing their statements in the presence of their chosen witnesses, as required by relevant provisions of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act.
They further alleged that some of the officers were not properly cautioned or adequately informed of their rights before making the statements.
The prosecution, on the other hand, presented evidence intended to show that the statements were made voluntarily and without improper influence.
During the trial-within-trial, some accused officers gave accounts that contradicted the prosecution’s position, alleging that they experienced coercion, intimidation, inducement and physical abuse while in detention.
Evidence before the court included claims that some officers were led to believe that reproducing particular statements would secure their release.
Some also alleged that intelligence officials had prepared statements beforehand and compelled them to copy or sign the documents, including portions containing information they said they did not know.
Others told the court that they did not personally author or write statements attributed to them, alleging that they were forced to reproduce pre-written documents containing purported claims or admissions they considered false or unrelated to their knowledge.
The court’s eventual ruling will determine whether the disputed statements can form part of the prosecution’s evidence in the ongoing proceedings.
The October 5 sitting will therefore be significant in resolving the outstanding evidentiary question before the substantive trial can proceed on that aspect.