The General Court Martial handling the alleged coup case involving some military officers has postponed its ruling on the admissibility of statements attributed to the accused persons until October 5, 2026.
The ruling, which was expected on Wednesday, September 30, will now be delivered on Monday, October 5.
The court, presided over by Air Vice Marshal H.I. Alhaji of the Nigerian Air Force, is sitting at the Scorpion Officers’ Mess in Asokoro, Abuja.
A notice issued to members of the court and other concerned parties on Wednesday announced 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, signed by the Liaison Officer, Major M.U. Ardo, did not state the reason for the postponement but expressed regret over the inconvenience caused.
Wednesday’s development represents the fourth time the ruling has been deferred.
The court’s decision is expected to determine whether statements allegedly obtained from some of the accused officers can be admitted as evidence in the ongoing proceedings.
The defence has challenged the admissibility of the statements, alleging that some of the officers were coerced by officials of the Defence Intelligence Agency into making or reproducing statements containing information they described as false.
The disagreement over the statements resulted in a trial-within-trial, during which defence lawyers presented evidence challenging the circumstances under which the statements were obtained.
The defence argued that the statements did not satisfy the legal requirements for admission as evidence.
The lawyers, among other claims, alleged that lawyers or witnesses selected by some of the accused officers were not present when the statements were made.
They also questioned the absence of video recordings showing some of the officers writing their statements in the presence of their chosen witnesses, as required under relevant provisions of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act.
The defence further alleged that some of the officers were not properly cautioned or adequately informed of their rights before making the statements.
The prosecution, however, presented evidence intended to show that the statements were made voluntarily and without improper pressure.
During the trial-within-trial, some of the accused officers gave accounts that differed from the prosecution’s position, alleging that they were subjected to coercion, intimidation, inducement and physical abuse while in detention.
Some of the officers also alleged that they were led to believe that reproducing particular statements would result in their release.
They further claimed that intelligence officials had prepared some of the statements beforehand and that they were compelled to copy or sign the documents despite allegedly being unaware of some of the information contained in them.
Some also told the court that they did not personally write or originate the statements attributed to them, alleging that they were forced to reproduce pre-written documents containing claims or admissions they considered false or unrelated to their knowledge.
The ruling on the admissibility of the disputed statements will determine whether the prosecution can rely on them as part of its evidence in the ongoing trial.
The latest postponement means the court will now have to wait until October 5 to determine the evidentiary dispute.
