An Abuja Federal High Court on Monday viewed a video recording containing the alleged confession of the sixth defendant in the ongoing trial of individuals accused of conspiring to overthrow the administration of President Bola Tinubu.
In the video presented before the court, the defendant, Sheikh Sani Abdulkadir, stated that he had warned the alleged conspirators that their planned coup would fail and that those involved would eventually be exposed.
The footage was played during the continuation of proceedings, with the fourth prosecution witness, identified as PW4, still giving testimony before the court.
Abdulkadir, who described himself as an Islamic cleric, explained in the recording that he had known the alleged ringleader, Colonel Ma’aji, for less than a year. He said he was introduced to the matter through an individual identified as Sanda, who approached him to offer prayers concerning the alleged coup plot.
According to the cleric, Sanda informed him that his “oga” intended to carry out a coup and required spiritual guidance and divination concerning the success of the mission.
Abdulkadir told investigators that after conducting prayers, he informed those involved that the operation would fail and that two members of the group would eventually betray the others.
He further disclosed that another message was later delivered to him through Sanda requesting additional prayers to prevent the alleged betrayal.
The cleric stated that money was subsequently sent to him for prayers and charitable activities, while names of individuals allegedly connected to the plot were forwarded to him for inclusion in the prayers.
According to him, shortly after the prayers began, Sanda informed him that Colonel Ma’aji had disappeared for four days. He later learnt through media reports that arrests had been made in connection with an alleged coup plot.
Abdulkadir maintained in the video that the funds transferred to him were solely for prayers and not for supporting any illegal activity.
He also admitted that he never reported the alleged plot to authorities, explaining that he did not know who to approach despite understanding that a coup involved a military takeover of government.
The cleric narrated that he was later arrested after visiting the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission, EFCC, regarding restrictions placed on his bank account.
He explained that he had attempted to withdraw money transferred into the account but discovered it had been flagged. After contacting an EFCC deputy director, he was invited to the commission’s office, where he clarified that the money was intended for prayers.
Abdulkadir insisted that he never made any statement relating to a coup while in EFCC custody.
Before the recording ended, the defendant stated that he was neither assaulted nor tortured and that all statements he made were voluntary.
Following the playback of the video, the prosecution sought to tender extra judicial statements allegedly made by the first to fifth defendants before a Special Investigation Panel and military police authorities, alongside the sixth defendant’s statement made before military police investigators.
However, counsel representing all six defendants separately opposed the admissibility of the statements and the accompanying video recordings.
The defence lawyers argued that the statements were either not voluntarily made or were obtained in violation of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act, ACJA.
Counsel to the first defendant argued that the written statement did not correspond with the contents of the video evidence regarding voluntariness.
The second defendant’s lawyer contended that his client was not informed of his right to legal representation and was denied access to counsel before the statement was recorded. He also argued that the video shown in court did not capture the actual process of obtaining the written statement.
The third defendant also challenged the admissibility of the statement, maintaining that the contents of the video differed from the written extra judicial statement.
Counsel to the fourth defendant argued that the video and statement violated Sections 15 and 17 of the ACJA, which provide for the presence of legal representation during statement taking.
The lawyer further alleged that his client was coerced into making the statement and claimed that the recording did not clearly show whether the defendant’s legs were free during the video session.
The fifth defendant’s counsel opposed the admissibility of the statements on grounds of alleged inducement, torture and non compliance with provisions of the ACJA and the Evidence Act.
He also argued that because multiple defendants were involved, the court should conduct separate trial within trial proceedings for each disputed statement instead of a joint exercise.
Counsel to the sixth defendant similarly objected to the admissibility of both the written and video statements credited to Abdulkadir, insisting they were obtained through inducement and were not voluntarily made.
Responding to the objections, the prosecution urged the court to dismiss the defence arguments and proceed with a single trial within trial for all disputed statements.
The prosecution maintained that the law does not require separate proceedings for each defendant and argued that the trial judge has the discretion to determine how evidence is received.
In her ruling, Justice Joyce Abdulmalik ordered a joint trial within trial to determine the voluntariness and admissibility of both the written and video statements of all six defendants.
The matter was adjourned to May 12, 2026, for continuation of proceedings.
