Fresh insights have emerged on why the Federal Government adopted a cautious tone in its public communication regarding the recently uncovered alleged plot to destabilise President Bola Tinubu’s administration, following legal advice from a top member of his cabinet.

According to credible security and government sources quoted by PRNigeria, a senior legal luminary in the Presidency, described as one of Tinubu’s most trusted advisers on constitutional and national security matters, counselled the government not to publicly refer to the incident as a “coup attempt.”

The advice reportedly came shortly after internal intelligence operatives at the Defence Headquarters (DHQ) intercepted what they initially believed to be a coordinated plan involving some military personnel and their civilian collaborators.

A top security source said, “The counsel from the Presidency was very clear.

“He said we must avoid sensational language until investigations are complete. Once you call it a coup, you set off panic, alert potential accomplices, and make legal proceedings much harder to sustain.”

The legal adviser reportedly warned that branding the case a coup without conclusive evidence could have grave legal, psychological, and operational consequences for both the armed forces and the government.

Investigators were urged to gather incontrovertible evidence before making public declarations to ensure that prosecutions, if any, would not be jeopardised by premature public statements.

A source said, “The investigators needed solid evidence before speaking out. Any hasty declaration could compromise ongoing surveillance and prosecution efforts.”

PRNigeria also reported that the restrained public communication strategy was partly intended to prevent potential collaborators, both within and outside the military, from fleeing once the story broke.

At the time, intelligence operatives were still tracing financial transactions and communication links connected to the detained officers.

“The leadership wanted to quietly monitor the networks before any arrests or public disclosures,” an insider revealed.

The report also noted that the military’s decision to handle the case discreetly was influenced by concerns about the psychological state of some of the detained officers, a few of whom reportedly had disciplinary histories.

A senior official said, “The military was handling the issue discreetly to protect institutional integrity.

“The deliberate restraint was a strategic decision. The leadership didn’t want to create unnecessary tension in the polity or send wrong signals to our international partners.”

DHQ Initially Called It “Indiscipline”

It was based on this strategic caution that the Defence Headquarters initially described the arrests as cases of “indiscipline” and “professional misconduct,” rather than a direct coup attempt.

However, this cautious press release reportedly led to public confusion until media reports later exposed the full scope of the investigation.

Both the Federal Government and the Defence Headquarters have since reaffirmed their commitment to democratic governance and constitutional order.