The General Court Martial handling the alleged coup plot involving some military officers has again postponed its ruling on the admissibility of statements made by the accused.
The ruling, initially scheduled for Wednesday, September 30, 2026, has now been rescheduled for 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, Asokoro, Abuja.
A notice issued to members of the court and other concerned parties confirmed the postponement.
“The GCM sitting earlier adjourned to Wednesday, 30 September, 2026, has now been postponed to Monday, 5 October, 2026,” the notice stated.
The new sitting is scheduled to begin at 10am.
The notice, signed by the Liaison Officer, Major M.U. Ardo, did not disclose the reason for the latest adjournment but apologised for any inconvenience caused.
The latest development represents the fourth time the ruling has been deferred.
The ruling is expected to determine whether statements allegedly obtained from some of the accused officers can be admitted as evidence in the ongoing trial.
Defence lawyers had challenged the admissibility of the statements, alleging that some of the officers were coerced by officials of the Defence Intelligence Agency.
The defence claimed that some accused officers were forced to make or reproduce statements containing information they considered false.
The dispute triggered a trial-within-a-trial to examine the circumstances under which the statements were obtained.
Defence counsel argued that the statements failed to meet legal requirements for admissibility.
They also alleged that lawyers or witnesses selected by some of the accused were not present when the statements were made.
The defence further questioned the absence of video recordings showing some officers writing their statements in the presence of their chosen witnesses, as required under relevant provisions of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act.
Lawyers also alleged that some of the accused were not properly cautioned or adequately informed of their rights before making the statements.
The prosecution, however, presented evidence intended to establish that the statements were made voluntarily and without improper pressure.
During the trial-within-a-trial, some accused officers gave conflicting accounts of how their statements were obtained.
They alleged that they were subjected to coercion, intimidation, inducement and physical abuse while in detention.
Some officers also told the court that they were made to believe that reproducing particular statements would lead to their release.
They further alleged that some statements had already been prepared by intelligence officials and that they were compelled to copy or sign them.
The accused officers claimed that some of the contents were false, unrelated to their knowledge or not personally authored by them.
The court’s ruling will determine whether the disputed statements can be admitted and relied upon by the prosecution in the ongoing military proceedings.
The latest postponement therefore prolongs the determination of a major evidentiary dispute at the centre of the alleged coup trial.
