By Mohammed Mubarak Alabi
There are moments in a nation’s life when the contradictions of those in power become so glaring that silence is no longer an option. This is one of such moments.
When reports first emerged of an alleged coup plot against President Bola Tinubu, the Defence Headquarters headed by then Chief of Defence Staff, General Christopher Musa, publicly denied that any such plot existed. Not long after that denial, he was, together with some other service chiefs, removed from office. The message was clear: their position was unacceptable to the government.
Months later, however, Nigerians were treated to a political absurdity. The same Christopher Musa was not only rehabilitated but rewarded—with a ministerial appointment overseeing the very same defence establishment he once led. An establishment where, as Chief of Defence Staff, had categorically denied the existence of a coup plot.
Fast forward again, and now the Defence Headquarters has officially confirmed that there was indeed a coup attempt.
At this point, a simple question demands an answer: why are some of those who denied the existence of a coup still in place?
By confirming the existence of a coup plot, the Defence Headquarters has effectively contradicted its former position — the very position for which its head and two former service chiefs were allegedly removed. Does this confirmation not amount to a direct indictment of Musa’s tenure as Chief of Defence Staff? Or are Nigerians expected to accept that denial of a grave national security threat is both sackable and rewardable, depending on political convenience?
Even more troubling are the legal implications. Any competent defence lawyer representing the officers currently being prosecuted for this alleged coup would have a field day. The case practically writes itself.
A lawyer could simply subpoena Christopher Musa as a witness. After all, as head of the Defence Headquarters at the material time, the office he headed denied any knowledge of a coup plot. The never publicly retracted that position before his appointment as Minister of Defence. His subsequent elevation, therefore, amounts to an official vindication of his stance that no coup existed.
And here lies the fatal contradiction.
As Minister of Defence, Christopher Musa is the authority to whom the military panel trying these officers will ultimately submit its report. Is it logical, legal, or morally defensible for a minister—who once denied the very offence under trial—to endorse a verdict of guilt?
Does this not suggest that the same minister is presiding over a prosecution for an offence which his office had earlier described as nonexistent? Does it not raise the spectre of a “phantom coup” constructed after the fact?
More disturbingly, it calls into question the integrity of the entire process. If the Defence Headquarters he once denied the offence, then either it was grossly misinformed then, or the government is being dishonest now. Both possibilities are dangerous.
One must also ask: who is advising the President? How could such an obvious conflict of logic, law, and morality escape notice at the highest levels of government?
This is not just about Christopher Musa. It is about governance without coherence, accountability without consistency, and justice without credibility. Nigerians deserve better than a system where truth is optional and contradictions are policy.
And if anyone thinks this argument can be faulted—point blank—the honest answer is simple: it cannot.
● Mr. Alabi is an Abuja-based journalist. He sent this via WhatsApp.
