The General Court Martial (GCM) sitting over an alleged coup plot involving some military officers has again postponed its ruling on the admissibility of statements made by the accused persons.

 The ruling, which was earlier scheduled for Wednesday, September 30, 2026, has now been adjourned to Monday, October 5.

 The court, presided over by Air Vice Marshal H.I. Alhaji of the Nigerian Air Force, sits at the Scorpion Officers’ Mess, Asokoro, Abuja.

 A notice issued to members of the court and other concerned parties on Wednesday said the sitting had been postponed.

 “The GCM sitting earlier adjourned to Wednesday, 30 September, 2026, has now been postponed to Monday, 5 October, 2026.

 “The new sitting is scheduled to commence at 10am at the Scorpion Officers’ Mess, Asokoro, Abuja,” the notice stated.

 The notice, signed by the Liaison Officer, Major M.U. Ardo, did not state the reason for the latest postponement but expressed regret over the inconvenience caused.

 The latest development marks the fourth time the ruling has been deferred.

 The court’s decision is expected to determine whether statements allegedly obtained from some of the accused officers can be admitted as evidence in the ongoing trial.

 The defence had challenged the admissibility of the statements, alleging that some of the officers were coerced by officials of the Defence Intelligence Agency (DIA) into making or reproducing statements containing information they described as false.

 The dispute led to a trial-within-trial, during which the defence presented evidence challenging the circumstances under which the statements were obtained.

 Defence lawyers argued that the statements did not meet the legal requirements for admissibility.

 Among other claims, they alleged that lawyers or witnesses chosen by some of the accused officers were not present when the statements were made.

 The defence also questioned the absence of video recordings showing some of the officers writing their statements in the presence of their chosen witnesses, as required under relevant provisions of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act.

 The lawyers further alleged that some of the accused officers were neither properly cautioned nor adequately informed of their rights before making the statements.

 The prosecution, however, presented evidence seeking to establish that the statements were made voluntarily and without improper pressure.

 During the trial-within-trial, some of the accused officers gave contrary accounts, alleging that they were subjected to coercion, intimidation, inducement and physical abuse while in detention.

 According to evidence before the court, some of the officers alleged that they were made to believe that reproducing particular statements would facilitate their release.

 They also claimed that some of the statements had already been prepared by intelligence officials and that they were compelled to copy or sign them despite allegedly having no knowledge of some of the matters contained in the documents.

 Some further told the court that they did not personally originate or write the statements attributed to them, alleging that they were forced to reproduce pre-written documents containing claims or admissions they considered false or unrelated to their knowledge.

 The ruling on the admissibility of the disputed statements is expected to determine whether the prosecution can rely on them as part of its evidence in the ongoing proceedings.

 The latest postponement therefore further delays the court’s determination of a key evidentiary dispute in the military trial.