An army colonel standing trial over alleged involvement in a coup plot has rejected the authority of the military court handling the case, arguing that the tribunal lacks the constitutional powers to try him.
At the resumed hearing on Wednesday, the senior officer, through his legal team, questioned the legality of the court-martial proceedings and urged the panel to suspend the trial pending the determination of his objections.
The officer, who is facing charges linked to an alleged attempt to overthrow the government, maintained that he was innocent and insisted that the process violated his rights under the law.
Defence counsel argued that the military tribunal was improperly constituted and claimed the accused could not receive a fair hearing under the current arrangement. The lawyer further submitted that issues relating to the jurisdiction of the court should first be resolved before any substantive hearing continues.
“The accused person does not recognise the competence of this court to try him on the charges brought against him,” counsel told the panel, requesting that proceedings be halted until the matter is fully addressed.
Prosecuting counsel, however, opposed the application, insisting that the military court was validly established in line with the Armed Forces Act and had the authority to continue with the trial. The prosecution urged the panel to dismiss the objection and proceed with hearing the case.
The court subsequently adjourned proceedings to rule on the jurisdiction challenge and determine whether the trial would continue before the tribunal.
The colonel is among several military officers currently under investigation and prosecution over alleged coup-related activities said to have threatened national security. Authorities have accused the suspects of engaging in acts capable of undermining constitutional order, although details of the allegations remain largely undisclosed for security reasons.
The case has attracted significant public attention, with legal observers closely monitoring the court’s decision on whether the military tribunal can continue exercising jurisdiction over the matter.
