Nigeria’s federal government remains deadlocked over how to prosecute 16 military officers accused of plotting to overthrow President Bola Tinubu, with the presidency, military hierarchy, and Ministry of Justice unable to agree on whether the suspects should face court-martial proceedings or stand trial in a civilian Federal High Court.
Sources within the Defence Headquarters and the Ministry of Justice told Saturday PUNCH that while military leadership favors an internal court-martial, the presidency has not been convinced that a military tribunal is the appropriate venue, given that the alleged offence was committed against a democratically elected civilian government rather than a military administration.
“There is, indeed, confusion because this is the first time a coup attempt would be made under a civilian government. Previous coups occurred under military regimes, and they had their ways of handling such matters. We cannot rush to any court; we need to establish that the court has jurisdiction to handle the matter,” a senior official at the Federal Ministry of Justice said on condition of anonymity.
The deadlock has left the suspects in custody since their arrest in October 2025, raising constitutional concerns about prolonged detention without charge.
The alleged plot, reportedly scheduled for execution on October 25, 2025, targeted President Tinubu, Vice President Kashim Shettima, serving ministers, and military service chiefs for elimination. Brigadier General Musa Abubakar Sadiq from Nasarawa State is believed to have been the ringleader. Investigators found that disgruntlement over stalled promotions, particularly among northern officers who failed required examinations, partly fueled recruitment into the conspiracy.
Read Also: Failed Coup: I Was Meant To Be Killed – Defence Minster
The Defence Headquarters initially denied the arrests had anything to do with a coup plot when reports first emerged in October 2025. It reversed that position on January 26, 2026, when Director of Defence Information Major General Samaila Uba confirmed that investigations had been concluded and that the 16 officers had been identified as having a case to answer for actions inconsistent with military ethics and professional standards.
Defence Minister General Christopher Musa publicly insisted that court-martial proceedings would proceed. “They are going to face court-martials as usual. The process will be free and fair, and they will be allowed to engage their own legal counsel to defend their action,” he said.
However, a senior officer at Defence Headquarters told the newspaper that the military is still waiting for a presidential directive. “We are waiting for the President’s directive on the constitution of the court-martial panel. The DHQ had earlier announced that the indicted officers would be court-martialled in line with our rules. But there are some people, including government officials at the federal level, arguing that a court martial is not appropriate,” the officer said.
The source suggested a partial resolution may be emerging, with military officers potentially tried separately from any civilians implicated in the plot. “Only the military officers will be court-martialled. The civilians will be taken to a regular court; they are not part of us,” he said.
Human rights lawyer Femi Falana, Senior Advocate of Nigeria, rejected any court-martial option in the strongest terms, warning that proceedings before a military panel would be set aside by higher courts regardless of their outcome.
“A court martial has no jurisdiction. If they go ahead with a court martial, the decision will be set aside,” Falana said, drawing on constitutional provisions and historical precedent.
Falana cited the constitutional position that treason and treasonable felony must be tried in the Federal High Court, and noted that even during military administrations, coup plotters were not prosecuted in court-martial proceedings but before special tribunals created by decree, instruments that no longer exist. “Even throughout the military regime, no coup plotter was taken to a court martial because it is not covered by the Armed Forces Act. They were usually taken to special tribunals created by decrees for the trial of coup plotters. Those decrees have been repealed, and we are left with the Constitution,” he said.
In a striking historical parallel, Falana noted that the current president himself had faced treason charges in a civilian court. In the 1994 case of Ameh Ebute versus State, then-Senator Bola Tinubu was among defendants charged with treason before the Federal High Court.
Read Also: Colonel Who Allegedly Plotted Coup To Overthrow Tinubu
The lawyer also challenged the continued detention of approximately 40 people beyond the 16 formally indicted, arguing this violated constitutional protections against prolonged detention. “They claim that 16 have been indicted. Why are they still detaining about 40 people? If you say you have indicted 16, then you must release the others who are still being detained,” Falana said.
He argued the three-month constitutional detention limit had been breached. “Under the Constitution, they cannot be detained for more than three months. They should have been arraigned, especially after the investigation report was released, instead of trying them in the media and leaking snippets of the report. That amounts to a media trial, which is not permitted under the Constitution.”
Retired Brigadier General Sani Kukasheka-Usman, former Director of Army Public Relations, took a different position, arguing that the Armed Forces Act does provide for court-martial of serving personnel and that members of the armed forces are simultaneously subject to military, civil, and international law. He said the severity of the offence required strict compliance with both military and civilian legal procedures.
Legal analysts have widely agreed that any civilian conspirators cannot be subjected to court-martial proceedings under any circumstances, citing the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights ruling in Media Rights Agenda versus Nigeria, which established that military tribunals should not have jurisdiction over civilians under any circumstances.
No arraignment date has been set, and the presidency has not issued a public statement on the judicial process. The military’s continued silence on the trial timeline, months after investigations were formally concluded, has deepened questions about the government’s resolve to pursue accountability through established legal channels.
