By Our Correspondent

National News – A senior military officer, Col Mohammed Ma’aji, has challenged the authority of the Defence Headquarters Garrison General Court Martial in Abuja to try him over alleged mutiny and a plot to overthrow the government of President Bola Ahmed Tinubu.

The objection was filed before the military tribunal handling charges against Ma’aji, Brig Gen M.A. Sadiq, and 35 others accused of conspiracy and attempted coup activities.

Ma’aji argued that the military court lacked jurisdiction to hear counts one to nine of the charges.

He claimed the prosecution, listed as the Armed Forces of Nigeria, was not recognised in law as a juristic entity capable of initiating criminal proceedings.

According to the defence, only persons or legally recognised bodies can sue or be sued under Nigerian law.

The accused officer further maintained that the allegations against him did not amount to mutiny under the Armed Forces Act 2004.

He insisted that the claims related more to offences against the Nigerian state and constitutional order rather than breaches of military discipline or lawful command structure.

His legal team cited several Supreme Court judgments to support the argument that penal laws must be interpreted strictly in favour of accused persons.

The preliminary objection also stated that the prosecution failed to provide evidence of organised military rebellion, refusal of lawful orders, or acts of insubordination required to establish mutiny charges.

Ma’aji therefore urged the court martial to dismiss the case for lack of jurisdiction.

Meanwhile, proceedings at the Federal High Court in Abuja revealed fresh allegations during the trial of six suspected coup plotters.

One of the defendants, Zekeri Umoru, alleged in a video evidence session that Ma’aji discussed plans to gain access into the Presidential Villa, including possible disruption of electricity supply.

The witness also claimed there were discussions about using an ambulance route into the Villa.

Justice Joyce Abdulmalik adjourned the matter for continuation of the trial-within-trial.