Division Emerges Over How to Prosecute Coup Suspects

Uncertainty within the Federal Government has stalled the prosecution of officers and civilians accused of plotting to overthrow the administration of Bola Tinubu, as officials weigh whether the suspects should face a court-martial or be arraigned before a civilian court.

Sixteen senior officers — including a brigadier general and personnel from the navy and air force — were arrested in October 2025. Authorities initially denied that the detentions were linked to a coup attempt. On January 26, however, the Defence Headquarters confirmed that the arrests were connected to an alleged plan to topple the government.

The Director of Defence Information, Maj. Gen. Samaila Uba, said at the time that those implicated would be arraigned before relevant military judicial panels in line with the Armed Forces Act and other service regulations. Beyond the 16 officers, about 24 other suspects were also detained in connection with the alleged plot.

Despite the announcement, no formal charges have been filed and no court date has been fixed.

Sources within the military say investigations have been concluded and that the suspects are ready for arraignment. However, disagreement over jurisdiction has slowed the process. Some senior officers favour a court-martial for serving personnel, arguing that members of the armed forces are subject to military law. Under that position, civilian suspects would be tried separately in regular courts.

Others within the Presidency and the Federal Ministry of Justice are said to question whether a military tribunal is appropriate under a democratic system. Officials familiar with the discussions describe the situation as legally complex, noting that previous coup attempts occurred under military regimes, when special tribunals created by decree handled such cases. Those decrees are no longer in force.

A senior official in the Ministry of Justice said the Attorney-General’s office has yet to determine the proper court with jurisdiction, stressing that the matter requires careful legal consideration.

Human rights lawyer Femi Falana has argued that a court-martial would lack constitutional authority to try offences such as treason. He maintains that such charges fall within the jurisdiction of the Federal High Court and warned that any proceedings before the wrong forum could be overturned.

Falana also criticised the continued detention of suspects without arraignment, stating that constitutional safeguards require timely prosecution.

For now, the case remains unresolved. The final decision on how and where the suspects will be tried rests with the President in his capacity as Commander-in-Chief. Until that directive is issued, the prosecution of the alleged coup suspects remains in limbo.