A Federal High Court in Abuja on Monday played a video recording containing the alleged confession of one of the defendants standing trial over an alleged plot to overthrow the administration of President Bola Tinubu.
The video, shown during the continuation of proceedings before Justice Joyce Abdulmalik, featured the sixth defendant, Sheikh Sani Abdulkadir, speaking to investigators about his alleged involvement in the plot.
Abdulkadir, who described himself as an Islamic cleric, told investigators in the recording that he had warned the alleged conspirators that their plan would fail and that they would eventually be exposed.
The video was played while the fourth prosecution witness, identified as PW4, remained in the witness box.
In the recording previewed before the court, Abdulkadir said he became acquainted with the alleged ringleader, identified as Colonel Ma’aji, less than a year ago through a man called Sanda.
According to him, Sanda approached him for spiritual prayers and divination concerning the success of the alleged coup plan.
He said after conducting prayers, he informed them that the operation would fail and that two members of the group would eventually betray the others.
Abdulkadir further stated that Sanda later returned with another request for prayers aimed at preventing the two individuals from exposing the alleged plot.
The cleric told investigators that money was subsequently transferred to him for prayers and charity, while names of persons allegedly linked to the operation were sent to him for inclusion in the prayers.
He added that Sanda later informed him that Colonel Ma’aji had disappeared for several days, after which he learnt through media reports that arrests had been made in connection with an alleged coup conspiracy.
In the video, Abdulkadir insisted that the money sent to him was solely for prayers and not payment in support of a coup plot.
He also admitted understanding that a coup meant a military takeover of government, but claimed he never reported the alleged discussions because he did not know who to report them to.
The defendant narrated that he was eventually arrested after visiting the Economic and Financial Crimes Commissionover restrictions placed on his bank account.
According to him, he discovered that the account had been flagged when he attempted to withdraw part of the transferred funds.
He said he later contacted an EFCC deputy director and was invited to the commission’s office, where he explained that the money was meant for prayers.
Abdulkadir maintained in the recording that he did not make any statement relating to a coup while in EFCC custody.
Before the video ended, he also stated that he was neither assaulted nor tortured and that his statements were made voluntarily.
Following the playback, the prosecution sought to tender the extra-judicial statements allegedly made by the first to fifth defendants before military police investigators and a Special Investigation Panel, alongside the sixth defendant’s statement and video recording.
However, lawyers representing the six defendants separately opposed the admissibility of the statements and videos.
The defence teams argued that the statements were either involuntary or obtained in violation of provisions of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act.
Counsel to the first defendant contended that the written statement did not correspond with what was shown in the video regarding voluntariness.
The lawyer representing the second defendant argued that his client was denied access to legal representation before making the statement and insisted that the video shown in court was different from the process through which the written statement was obtained.
The third defendant’s counsel also challenged the admissibility of the statement, arguing that the contents of the video differed from the written version presented by the prosecution.
Counsel to the fourth defendant alleged that his client was coerced into making the statement and argued that the process violated Sections 15 and 17 of the ACJA, which require legal representation during statement-taking.
The fifth defendant’s lawyer also objected, alleging inducement, torture and non-compliance with both the ACJA and the Evidence Act.
He further argued that separate trial-within-trial proceedings should be conducted for each disputed statement instead of a joint hearing.
Counsel to the sixth defendant similarly opposed the admissibility of Abdulkadir’s written and video statements, insisting they were obtained through inducement and were not voluntarily made.
Responding, the prosecution urged the court to reject the objections and conduct a single trial-within-trial proceeding for all the disputed statement
The prosecution maintained that the law did not require separate proceedings for each defendant and argued that the court had the discretion to determine how evidence should be received.
In her ruling, Justice Abdulmalik ordered a joint trial-within-trial to determine the voluntariness and admissibility of the written and video statements of all six defendants.
The matter was adjourned until May 12, 2026, for continuation of proceedings.