Fresh controversy has emerged in the ongoing secret military trial of alleged coup plotters in Abuja after the court martial adjourned proceedings to May 18 and ordered lawyers representing the defendants to appear in wigs and gowns or risk being denied audience before the tribunal.
The directive followed an earlier confrontation between tribunal officials and members of the defence team over courtroom dress requirements inside the military facility where the trial is being conducted under tight security.
A source close to the proceedings disclosed on Wednesday that the tribunal made its position clear during the latest sitting.
“Case adjourned to May 18. Lawyers ordered by the court martial to wear robes otherwise they will not be given audience,” the source said.
The order is expected to deepen concerns surrounding the controversial proceedings, which are being conducted away from public scrutiny inside a restricted military facility in Abuja.
Tension had erupted during proceedings on Tuesday after civilian lawyers representing the alleged coup plotters refused a directive ordering them to appear in wigs and gowns before defending their clients.
Sources familiar with the matter said the lawyers challenged the tribunal’s authority to impose the dress requirement, arguing that such conditions were arbitrary and raised broader constitutional concerns, especially in a trial involving civilians.
According to the sources, the disagreement created a tense atmosphere inside the courtroom as tribunal officials allegedly threatened to eject the lawyers if they failed to comply with the directive.
Despite the warning, the defence lawyers reportedly maintained their position and questioned the legality of denying legal representatives audience based on dress requirements.
The Wednesday directive adjourning the case to May 18 and warning that lawyers who appear unrobed will not be given audience represents a hardening of the tribunal’s position in the face of the defence lawyers’ earlier objections.
By moving from a verbal directive accompanied by threats of ejection to a formal adjournment coupled with a categorical condition that lawyers must appear robed to be heard, the tribunal has now set the stage for a fresh confrontation on May 18 over an issue that is already the subject of a settled position adopted by the National Executive Council of the Nigerian Bar Association at its meeting in Awka on 7 May 2026, and reinforced by the public intervention of senior human rights lawyer, Mr. Femi Falana, SAN.
The latest adjournment and directive have further fuelled criticism over the secrecy surrounding the trial and the conditions under which the proceedings are being conducted.
The wig and gown standoff goes beyond a question of courtroom attire. It is a question of which body has the authority to regulate the professional conduct and appearance of legal practitioners in Nigeria, and whether a court martial which is a creature of the Armed Forces Act can impose dress requirements on civilian lawyers admitted to the Nigerian Bar.
Rule 45 of the Rules of Professional Conduct for Legal Practitioners specifically prescribes the courts before which legal practitioners are required to appear robed, namely the High Courts, the Court of Appeal, and the Supreme Court. Rule 45(2) further provides that “a lawyer shall not wear the Barrister’s or Senior Advocate’s robe on any occasion other than in Court except as may be directed or permitted by the Bar Council.”
By insisting that civilian lawyers must appear robed to be given audience, the court martial is now perceived as taking a position that places civilian lawyers in potential conflict with the very Rules of Professional Conduct that govern their practice exposing them to the risk of disciplinary proceedings before the Legal Practitioners Disciplinary Committee for breach of Rule 45(2), as warned by Mr. Femi Falana, SAN.
Meanwhile, the Federal High Court in Abuja earlier played a video-recorded statement of Sheikh Sani Abdulkadir, the sixth defendant and one of the civilians standing trial in the alleged coup plot case.
The recording, tendered before Justice Joyce Abdulmalik, showed the cleric admitting that he received money for prayers connected to the alleged operation while insisting he warned those involved that the plan would fail.
In the video, Abdulkadir said he had known the alleged ringleader, identified as Colonel Alhassan Maaji, for less than a year and was introduced through an intermediary known as Sanda, who allegedly sought spiritual assistance for the planned coup.
The parallel unfolding of the proceedings a public, open trial before Justice Joyce Abdulmalik at the Federal High Court on one hand, and a secret military trial inside a restricted military facility on the other continues to highlight the asymmetric forums in which persons accused of involvement in the alleged plot against President Bola Tinubu’s government are being tried.
While the Federal High Court is bound by the constitutional guarantees of fair hearing and public adjudication enshrined in Section 36 of the 1999 Constitution, the military tribunal is operating away from public scrutiny and now in open confrontation with civilian counsel over a dress code directive that the legal profession’s regulatory framework does not support.