The President of the General Court-Martial trying 36 Nigerian military personnel over an alleged plot to overthrow the government of President Bola Tinubu, Air Vice Marshal H.I. Alhaji (NAF/2211), has expressed anger over a recent SaharaReporters publication on the secret proceedings, warning lawyers against leaking information from the trial.
Multiple sources familiar with the proceedings told SaharaReporters that Air Vice Marshal Alhaji, during a court session, lamented that details of the ongoing trial had found their way into the media.
He reportedly threatened that mobile phones and other electronic devices belonging to lawyers could be seized before they are allowed into the courtroom if further information is leaked.
According to sources present during the proceedings, the court-martial president specifically referenced a SaharaReporters publication detailing the trial of the 36 military personnel and expressed disappointment with members of the defence team.
“He said his attention had been drawn to a publication by SaharaReporters and that he was highly disappointed in every one of the defence lawyers,” a source said.
The source added that Air Vice Marshal Alhaji complained that his name and personal details had been published in the report and described the publication as an attack on his personality.
“He said whoever made the publication was attacking his personality. He stated that because of the publication, lawyers from different places had approached him with unsolicited advice and requests to assist him in combating whoever was responsible for the report,” the source explained.
According to the source, the court-martial president reminded everyone present that he had previously instructed parties not to publicise or discuss the proceedings outside the courtroom.
“He said he had already asked everyone present in the hall not to publicise or speak about the court proceedings and that he was disappointed that information still got out. He warned that if the person responsible for the publication was identified, that person would face consequences,” the source said.
The source further disclosed that Air Vice Marshal Alhaji attempted to downplay the impact of the publication on his public image.
“He said that although his information had been published, his reputation could not be ruined because he is like a ‘human teddy bear’ and people love him regardless. He repeated that the publication could not damage his reputation because he is a human teddy bear,” the source stated.
The court-martial president also reportedly argued that media reports about the trial were harming the accused personnel rather than helping them.
“He said those releasing information to the media were doing a great disservice to the defendants. According to him, people might think they are helping the accused persons, but they are actually causing harm,” another source said.
“He further stated that publishing the names of the defendants was creating an impression that members of one part of the country were attempting to overthrow a government headed by someone from another part of the country. He said such reports could fuel unnecessary perceptions and narratives.”
According to sources, Air Vice Marshal Alhaji urged whoever was responsible for leaking information to stop communicating with journalists.
“He said information about the trial should not be in the public domain and that whoever was speaking to the media should refrain from doing so. He stated that he was certain that the person responsible for the publication was either present in court or represented by someone present in court,” a source said.
However, concerns were raised during the proceedings regarding the selective objection to media coverage.
One source noted that details relating to the accused personnel had already been published while investigations were still ongoing.
“Publications containing the names and information of the defendants had already been made before the trial commenced. Several reports had been released during the investigation stage, including sensitive information about the accused persons,” the source said.
“People had already published information while investigations were ongoing. Sensitive details had already entered the public space long before the current objections to media reporting.”
The sources also disclosed that Air Vice Marshal Alhaji referred to comments allegedly made to him by a Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN) concerning legal arguments raised by defence lawyers.
According to the sources, the court-martial president said a SAN had approached him and expressed surprise that lawyers were criticising a ruling delivered by the panel regarding whether a prima facie case had been established against the accused personnel.
“According to him, the SAN questioned why learned counsel, including senior counsel, would challenge the ruling when similar decisions had been upheld by the Supreme Court,” a source recounted.
The remark reportedly triggered a reaction from one of the defence lawyers.
“At that point, the learned Senior Advocate representing one of the accused persons said he felt personally attacked because he was the one who made the application asking members of the panel to recuse themselves based on the ruling they had delivered,” the source said.
“The SAN representing one of the accused persons argued that merely because the person who approached the president was also a Senior Advocate of Nigeria did not automatically make him correct. He insisted that whoever the SAN was should come forward and openly identify himself.”
Sources said the exchange ended shortly afterwards, but Air Vice Marshal Alhaji remained visibly upset about the SaharaReporters publication and repeatedly stressed his desire that details of the court-martial proceedings should not be disclosed to the public.
The ongoing court-martial involves 36 military personnel facing allegations linked to an alleged plot to overthrow President Bola Tinubu’s government.
The proceedings have attracted public attention amid concerns about transparency, due process and the rights of the accused.
SaharaReporters previously reported that allegations of bias and controversy had emerged at the ongoing General Court-Martial trying 36 Nigerian military personnel over an alleged plot to overthrow the President Tinubu’s government.
The controversy stems from reports that the President of the court-martial declared that a prima facie case had already been established against the defendants, despite the prosecution not having called a single witness or tendered any evidence before the court.
The development raised serious concerns among defence lawyers, who accused the military tribunal of prejudging the case and demanded that the panel recuse itself from further proceedings.
SaharaReporters gathered that the officers and soldiers were arrested, detained and subsequently arraigned before a general court-martial over allegations that they participated in a conspiracy between January 2022 and November 2025 in Abuja, Kaduna and Enugu to overthrow the Government of the Federal Republic of Nigeria.
According to court documents obtained by SaharaReporters, the defendants were slammed with 25 counts bordering on conspiracy, mutiny, failure to suppress mutiny and other offences under the Armed Forces Act.
Sources familiar with the proceedings told SaharaReporters that the defence team had challenged the jurisdiction of the court-martial to hear the matter, arguing that the allegations essentially amounted to treason, an offence which they insisted could only be tried by the Federal High Court.
“Our position was that the court lacks jurisdiction because the defendants were charged with mutiny and treason. We argued that only the Federal High Court has jurisdiction to entertain an offence of treason and that the charge, in its entirety, is fundamentally defective,” one of the defence lawyers earlier told SaharaReporters.
“The court, however, ruled against us and held that it has jurisdiction. While delivering the ruling, the President of the court-martial made a statement that raised serious concerns. In the course of reading the ruling, he stated that a prima facie case had been established against the defendants.”
The lawyer stressed that at the time the statement was made, the trial had not commenced in substance.
