By Obinna Uballa
There are strong indications that the Federal Government is yet to decide on the appropriate mode of trial for military officers and civilians alleged to have plotted a coup against President Bola Tinubu.
Punch Newspaper reported, citing credible sources, that authorities are weighing whether the indicted officers should face a court-martial under military law or be arraigned before a regular civilian court.
The uncertainty, according to the sources, stems from concerns about the legal framework applicable to the case. Unlike previous coup attempts that occurred under military regimes – where special tribunals or military panels were often used – the current allegations arose under a democratic government. This distinction, insiders say, has complicated the prosecution strategy.
In October 2025, the military arrested 16 senior officers, including a Brigadier General, a naval officer and several Air Force personnel. At the time, the authorities denied that the arrests were linked to any coup plot. However, on January 26, the Defence Headquarters publicly confirmed that the officers were detained over their alleged involvement in a plan to topple the administration of President Tinubu.
The Director of Defence Information, Maj. Gen. Samaila Uba, had announced that the suspects would be arraigned before “relevant military judicial panels” in accordance with the Armed Forces Act and other applicable service regulations.
In addition to the 16 officers, about 24 other individuals were reportedly arrested in connection with the alleged plot.
Despite the announcement and the presentation of an investigation report, there has been no further communication from the military regarding the commencement of trial proceedings.
Undecided Judicial Path
Top military sources who spoke on condition of anonymity said the silence reflects ongoing deliberations between the military hierarchy and the Presidency over the appropriate forum for trial.
One senior officer at the Defence Headquarters disclosed that while military authorities were inclined to convene a court-martial panel, the Presidency had reservations about whether such a route would be legally sound.
“We are waiting for the President’s directive on the constitution of the court-martial panel,” the officer said. “The DHQ had earlier indicated that the officers would be court-martialled in line with our internal rules. However, some government officials are of the view that a court-martial may not be appropriate in this case.”
He clarified that the proposed court-martial would apply strictly to serving military officers, while civilian suspects would be prosecuted in regular courts.
“We have our system and our procedures. The civilians will go to regular courts; they are not subject to military jurisdiction,” he added.
Similarly, a senior officer at Army Headquarters confirmed that investigations had been concluded and that the arraignment would take place “very soon.”
“Investigations have been completed. That was why the DHQ presented a report. Whoever is still at large cannot evade justice indefinitely,” he said.
However, when asked whether the trial would be conducted before a civilian court or through a court-martial, the officer admitted that the decision rests with the President as Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces.
“I am not in a position to determine which court will handle the matter. Some people are pushing for civilian prosecution, but that is for the President to decide,” he stated.
A senior official at the Federal Ministry of Justice also confirmed that the Office of the Attorney-General of the Federation had yet to reach a final decision.
“Nothing has been concluded. The AG’s office is central to the prosecution, whether it proceeds via court-martial or regular court,” the official said. “There is genuine confusion because this is the first alleged coup attempt under a civilian administration. Previous cases occurred under military regimes, which operated differently.”
He stressed that authorities must ensure the chosen court has proper jurisdiction before proceeding. “We cannot rush into any court. Jurisdiction must be clearly established,” he added.
Falana Raises Constitutional Concerns
Human rights lawyer and Senior Advocate of Nigeria, Femi Falana, has strongly opposed the idea of trying the suspects before a military tribunal. According to him, any decision reached by a court-martial would be invalidated for lack of jurisdiction.
“A court-martial has no jurisdiction to try coup plotters under a civilian government,” Falana said. “If they proceed with it, the decision will be set aside.”
He cited historical precedent, recalling a case during the Second Republic in which a suspect was arraigned before the wrong court and later freed by the Supreme Court.
“If you go to the wrong court, the entire case collapses,” he warned.
Falana argued that under Nigeria’s 1999 Constitution, offences such as treason and treasonable felony fall exclusively within the jurisdiction of the Federal High Court.
“The Constitution is supreme over the Armed Forces Act. You cannot subject alleged coup plotters to a court-martial when the Constitution clearly provides that treason-related offences be tried at the Federal High Court,” he maintained.
The senior lawyer also criticised the continued detention of several suspects months after their arrest. He questioned why about 40 individuals remained in custody when the military had announced that only 16 officers were indicted.
“If 16 have been indicted, the others should be released immediately,” he said. “We are operating under a constitutional democracy, not a military dictatorship.”
Falana further contended that even those indicted should have been arraigned promptly, arguing that prolonged detention violates constitutional safeguards.
“You cannot detain people indefinitely since October. The Constitution does not permit such prolonged detention without trial,” he said, adding that leaking details of the investigation to the media amounts to conducting a trial by publicity.
