The Nigerian Army has again postponed the ruling of the General Court Martial (GCM) hearing the alleged coup plot case involving military officers accused of attempting to overthrow the administration of President Bola Ahmed Tinubu.
The ruling, which was earlier scheduled for Wednesday, September 30, 2026, has now been moved to Monday, October 5, 2026, marking the fourth postponement of the decision.
In a notice issued to members of the court and other concerned parties, the Army said the GCM sitting earlier adjourned to Wednesday had been postponed.
“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 commence at 10am at the Scorpion Officers’ Mess, Asokoro, Abuja.
The notice was signed by Major MU Ardo, identified as the Liaison Officer.
The Army did not state the reason for the latest postponement, saying only: “Any inconvenience caused is highly regretted.”
The ruling concerns the admissibility of statements allegedly obtained from some of the accused officers during investigations into the alleged coup plot.
Defence lawyers have challenged the admissibility of the statements, alleging that officials of the Defence Intelligence Agency (DIA) coerced, intimidated and pressured some of the officers into making, reproducing or signing statements.
The dispute over the statements led to a trial-within-a-trial, conducted over several weeks to determine whether the statements were made voluntarily and whether they can be admitted as evidence in the ongoing military proceedings.
The General Court Martial is presided over by Air Vice Marshal H. I. Alhaji (NAF/2211), while proceedings are being held at the Scorpion Officers’ Mess in Asokoro, Abuja.
During the trial-within-a-trial, defence lawyers argued that the disputed statements did not meet legal requirements for admissibility.
The defence alleged, among other things, that lawyers or witnesses chosen by some of the accused officers were not present when the statements were taken.
They also argued that video recordings were not made showing the accused 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 challenged the circumstances under which some of the statements were obtained, arguing that some of the accused officers were not properly cautioned or adequately informed of their rights before making the statements.
The prosecution, however, presented evidence aimed at establishing that the statements were made voluntarily and without improper pressure.
Some of the accused officers gave evidence disputing the prosecution’s account.
According to testimony presented during the trial-within-a-trial, some of the officers alleged that they were subjected to coercion, intimidation, inducement and physical abuse by officials of the DIA.
Some officers reportedly told the court that they were led to believe that making particular statements would secure their release from detention.
They further alleged that intelligence officials had already prepared statements which they were subsequently compelled to reproduce or sign.
The officers told the court that they did not personally originate some of the statements attributed to them and that they were made to copy pre-written documents containing allegations or admissions they claimed were false or unrelated to their personal knowledge.
The allegations also included claims that some officers were intimidated and physically abused during the period in which the statements were allegedly obtained.
The prosecution’s evidence and the defence testimony remain contested before the court, with the GCM expected to determine whether the disputed statements were voluntarily obtained and legally admissible.
The court’s ruling on October 5 will therefore address a significant evidentiary dispute in the ongoing case, while the repeated postponements have further delayed the proceedings against the accused military officers.
The Army’s latest notice did not indicate whether October 5 would be the final date for the ruling.