The Federal High Court in Abuja on Tuesday adjourned trial of six alleged coup plotters until July 20.
The case, which was fixed for continuation of trial-within-trial by Justice Joyce Abdulmalik, could not go on after repeated disputes over the interpretation of the sixth defendant’s testimony.
This defence lawyer, Sanusi Musa, SAN, had complained that interpreters were not accurately translating the testimony of the 6th defendant, Abdulkadir Sani.
Sani, who spoke in Hausa Language while giving his testimony, was challenging the voluntariness of statements the prosecution sought to tender against him as evidence.
Following the complaint, Justice Abdulmalik discharged the last interpreter and directed the parties to produce a neutral interpreter from the defendant’s exact linguistic background, rather than relying on a general Hausa interpreter.
“Find out exactly where this witness is from,” the judge said, explaining that the court needed a neutral interpreter who could accurately interpret the witness’ evidence for both the court and the parties.
She adjourned the matter until July 20 for the continuation of the trial within a trial.
The Federal Government, through the Office of the Attorney-General of Federation (AGF), had, on April 22, arraigned the defendants on 13-count charge.
The charge, marked FHC/ABJ/CR/206/2026, was filed on April 20 by the Director, Public Prosecutions of the Federation, Rotimi Oyedepo, SAN.
Others named in the charge are retired Maj.-Gen. Mohammed Gana, retired Navy Capt. Erasmus Victor Insp Ahmed Ibrahim , Zekeri Umoru and, Bukr Goni.
The former Minister of State for Petroleum Resources, Timipre Sylva, who is alleged to be part of the act, is listed as being at large.
The defendants were accused of offenses ranging from treason and terrorism to failure to disclose security intelligence and money laundering linked to terrorism financing.
When the case was called on Tuesday, Musa complained about the translation of the Hausa language into English by the interpreter.
The first interpreter was challenged after the defence lawyer complained that he was not accurately translating the witness’ evidence.
The court allowed another interpreter, a woman to take over, but the defence again complained that the interpretation did not accurately reflect the testimony of the witness.
A third interpreter, a young lawyer associated with the defence team, was then called to assist.
Before he began interpreting, Musa informed the court that if the lawyer assumed the role of interpreter, he will no longer act as counsel in the proceedings.
As the witness continued his testimony, Musa again complained that the witness did not understand the questions put to him.
At this point, Justice Abdulmalik observed that an interpreter owed duties to both the court and the witness.
NAN reports that Justice Abdulmalik had, on May 11, ordered the trial-within-trial after defence lawyers objected to the admissibility of the statements and video recordings the prosecution sought to tender.
They argued that the statements were not made voluntarily.
The objection was after the prosecution had called four witnesses.
The 4th prosecution witness (PW-4), an army officer identified by the codename AAA for security reasons, is yet to be discharged.
The PW-4 tendered video recordings of the defendants’ interrogations before the trial-within-trial began.
The Federal Government, however, closed its case in the trial-within-trial on 23 June, after which the defendants began opening their defence on 25 June.
