Fresh controversy has emerged at the General Court-Martial hearing the case of 36 military personnel accused of plotting to overthrow the administration of President Bola Ahmed Tinubu.
Tension reportedly escalated after concerns were raised that the President of the tribunal appeared to suggest that a prima facie case had already been established against the defendants, even though the prosecution had not yet called witnesses or tendered evidence.
The development sparked objections from defence lawyers, who questioned the neutrality of the panel and called for its withdrawal from the proceedings.
Sources familiar with the trial told SaharaReporters that the defence initially challenged the jurisdiction of the court-martial, arguing that the allegations—described as treasonable in nature—should instead be tried at the Federal High Court.
However, the tribunal dismissed the objection and ruled that it had the legal authority to hear the case under the Armed Forces Act.
During proceedings, the defence raised further concerns after the tribunal allegedly stated in its ruling that a prima facie case had been established without any witness testimony or evidential presentation.
One of the defence lawyers argued that the remark created the impression that the panel had already formed an opinion on the merits of the case, undermining the principle of fair hearing. The lawyer subsequently urged the court to step aside from the matter.
The issue triggered lengthy arguments in court. The Judge Advocate reportedly later acknowledged that the statement was made in error and offered an apology, suggesting that the reference be removed from the ruling.
However, defence counsel opposed any alteration, insisting that the statement had already been made in open court and must remain part of the official record. The proposal to amend the ruling was eventually dropped.
The defence team later applied for certified true copies of the proceedings, particularly the ruling containing the disputed statement, but said the documents had not yet been made available.
In the substantive ruling delivered by the President of the General Court-Martial, Air Vice Marshal H.I. Alhaji, the tribunal held that the Defence Headquarters Garrison Commander was legally empowered to convene the court-martial under the Armed Forces Act.
The panel also rejected arguments that the case constituted treason that must be exclusively handled by the Federal High Court.
According to the tribunal, the accused officers are being tried for offences relating to mutiny, conspiracy, failure to suppress mutiny, and related military breaches.
The defendants include senior and junior officers drawn from the Nigerian Army, Navy, and Air Force. They are accused of offences allegedly committed between January 2022 and November 2025.
READ ALSO:
- Umahi: Lagos-Calabar coastal highway may not be completed if Tinubu loses in 2027
- Tope Alabi warns of legal action over false, defamatory claims
- Folorunso Alakija denies EFCC fraud claim, demands removal of “defamatory” report
- NCC Strengthens Ties With Airtel, IHS Towers to Boost Nationwide Connectivity
- Infantino Secures AFC Backing For Fourth FIFA Term
