The Federal High Court in Abuja on Monday viewed a video recording featuring the alleged confession of the sixth defendant, Sheikh Sani Abdulkadir, in the ongoing trial of six individuals accused of conspiring to overthrow the administration of President Bola Tinubu.

The footage was presented during the testimony of the fourth prosecution witness (PW4). In the recording, Abdulkadir, an Islamic cleric, detailed his interactions with the alleged conspirators. He claimed he was approached by a man identified as Sanda on behalf of a "Colonel Ma’aji" to provide spiritual intercession and divination regarding the success of a planned coup.

Summary of the Recorded Testimony

According to the video evidence, Abdulkadir informed investigators that:

Predictions of Failure: After performing spiritual rites, he warned the plotters that the operation would fail and that two members of the group would eventually betray the others.

Financial Transactions: He received funds which he maintained were intended for prayers and charitable acts, rather than as payment for participating in a treasonable act. He also received a list of names to include in his spiritual sessions.

The Arrest: Abdulkadir’s involvement came to light after he visited the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) to resolve a restriction placed on his bank account. He was subsequently detained after explaining the source of the funds to an EFCC deputy director.

Failure to Report: While acknowledging he understood a "coup" to mean the military overthrow of a government, the cleric stated he did not report the plot because he was unsure of the appropriate authorities to contact.

In the recording, Abdulkadir asserted that his statements were made voluntarily and without coercion or torture.

Defense Challenges Admissibility

Following the playback, the prosecution moved to tender the extra-judicial statements and accompanying video recordings of all six defendants. However, the defense team launched a collective challenge against the admissibility of these documents.

Counsel for the defendants raised several legal objections, including:

Lack of Voluntariness: Multiple lawyers argued that the statements were obtained through inducement, coercion, or physical torture.

Procedural Violations: The defense contended that the prosecution violated the Administration of Criminal Justice Act (ACJA), specifically Sections 15 and 17, by failing to ensure the presence of legal representation during the recording of the statements.

Discrepancies: Lawyers for the first and third defendants argued that the contents of the written statements did not align with the visual evidence presented in the video.

Court Ruling

The prosecution countered these objections, maintaining that the trial judge holds the discretion to determine how evidence is received and argued against the necessity of separate proceedings for each defendant.

Presiding Judge Justice Joyce Abdulmalik subsequently ordered a joint trial-within-trial to determine the voluntariness and legal admissibility of both the written and video statements of all six defendants.

The proceedings have been adjourned to May 12, 2026, for the commencement of the trial-within-trial.