A General Court-Martial prosecuting 36 military personnel over an alleged conspiracy to topple the government of President Bola Tinubu has been thrown into fresh turmoil, after defence lawyers accused the tribunal of prejudging the case before a single witness had taken the stand.
The controversy centres on a statement allegedly made by the President of the tribunal suggesting that a prima facie case had already been established against the defendants — a declaration that drew immediate outrage from the defence, who argued that no evidence had yet been presented to justify such a conclusion.
“At that stage, no witness had testified and no evidence had been led. Yet the court-martial stated in its ruling that a prima facie case had been established against the defendants,” a defence lawyer told sources familiar with the proceedings.
The defence team subsequently called on the entire panel to recuse itself from the case, arguing that the statement had fatally compromised the tribunal’s appearance of impartiality. The demand triggered what sources described as extensive and heated arguments within the courtroom.
In a rare admission, the Judge Advocate reportedly acknowledged that the remark had been made in error and offered an apology, proposing that the reference to a prima facie case be struck from the official ruling. However, defence counsel firmly rejected the suggestion, insisting that since the statement had already been made in open court, it must remain part of the permanent record. The proposal to alter the ruling was ultimately abandoned.
The defence has since applied for certified copies of the proceedings — particularly the ruling containing the disputed statement — to verify how it appears in the official records. Lawyers say those documents have not yet been made available to them.
The trial itself has already weathered a separate jurisdictional battle. Defence lawyers had earlier argued that the nature of the allegations — amounting to treason — placed the matter squarely within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Federal High Court. The tribunal, however, rejected that argument, with its President, Air Vice Marshal H.I. Alhaji, ruling that the Defence Headquarters Garrison Commander held the legal authority to convene the court-martial under the Armed Forces Act.
The court further clarified the basis of the prosecution, stating: “The accused are standing trial on offences relating to mutiny and failure to suppress mutiny.”
The 36 defendants — drawn from the Nigerian Army, Navy, and Air Force and spanning senior officers, junior officers, and other ranks — face multiple counts including conspiracy, mutiny, failure to suppress mutiny, and related charges. The alleged offences are said to have been committed across a period stretching from January 2022 to November 2025.
The case has drawn significant public attention given its implications for civil-military relations in Nigeria, with the outcome expected to have far-reaching consequences for the country’s armed forces and democratic institutions.
