- According to insiders, the military prosecution has now presented and withdrawn different versions of the charges multiple times, raising concerns over inconsistencies and uncertainty surrounding the allegations against the detained officers.
Tension and confusion reportedly engulfed the ongoing secret court martial of military officers accused of plotting a coup against President Bola Tinubu’s government, after defence lawyers openly challenged what they described as “vague, speculative and repeatedly recycled charges” filed by military authorities.
Sources familiar with the proceedings told SaharaReporters that dramatic scenes unfolded during the session as defence counsel accused the prosecution of repeatedly altering its case in what they alleged was a desperate attempt to secure convictions.
According to insiders, the military prosecution has now presented and withdrawn different versions of the charges multiple times, raising concerns over inconsistencies and uncertainty surrounding the allegations against the detained officers.
The defence team argued that the military authorities were struggling to establish a coherent legal basis for the prosecution.
Lawyers representing the accused officers further maintained that allegations relating to treason, coup plotting and attempts to overthrow the government are constitutional matters that fall strictly within the jurisdiction of civilian courts and not military tribunals sitting behind closed doors.
They alleged that military authorities were attempting to reframe the allegations as mutiny in order to bring the matter within the jurisdiction of a court martial.
According to the lawyers, the move amounts to an unlawful substitution of constitutional offences with military offences.
Another observer present during the proceedings questioned the secrecy surrounding the trial and called for greater transparency.
“It is impossible to talk about justice when everything is shrouded in secrecy,” the observer said.
The defence team also demanded that journalists, civil society organisations, diplomats and independent observers be granted access to the proceedings to ensure transparency and public confidence in the process.
Human rights advocates and constitutional lawyers have also raised concerns over the legality of the trial arrangement, arguing that the military cannot simultaneously function as complainant, investigator, prosecutor and judge in a matter involving grave constitutional allegations.
SaharaReporters recalls that several senior lawyers, including human rights lawyer, Femi Falana (SAN), had previously called for the case to be transferred to a competent civilian High Court.
The legal experts argued that prosecuting the officers before a military tribunal contravenes Section 251 of the Nigerian Constitution, which grants exclusive jurisdiction to the Federal High Court over treason and related offences.
According to the lawyers, any attempt to try allegations bordering on treason before a military tribunal raises serious constitutional and fair hearing concerns.
In April, Falana called for an immediate halt to the Nigerian government’s plan to subject 36 serving military officers to a General Court Martial over the alleged coup plot.
He cautioned that such proceedings would undermine constitutional safeguards and violate the principles of due process.
According to him, offences such as treason and terrorism fall squarely within the jurisdiction of the Federal High Court and should not be split between civilian courts and military panels.
Falana argued that subjecting some suspects to a court-martial while others face trial in a regular court violates the constitutional principle of equality before the law.
He said the adoption of different legal processes for individuals accused of the same offence is a breach of the spirit and letter of the Constitution.
He further pointed out that in previous instances involving similar allegations, suspects were tried within the regular court system rather than through court-martial proceedings.
Falana therefore called on the Attorney-General of the Federation to urgently intervene by halting the planned military trials and consolidating all prosecutions under the appropriate judicial framework.
He stressed that adherence to due process and constitutional safeguards must not be compromised, especially in cases involving grave offences such as treason and terrorism.
@SaharaReporters
