What my proposed bill on repealing the Armed Forces Act 2004 seeks to achieve

Katsina Central Senator, Abdulaziz Yar’adua, has clarified that his proposed bill to repeal and re-enact the Armed Forces Act, 2004, does not seek to empower civil courts to try military officers in place of court-martials.

Join the Premium Times WhatsApp Community For Quick Access To News and Happenings Around You.

Open in WhatsApp

The bill passed second reading at the Senate on Thursday and was referred to the Senate Committees on Defence, Army, Air Force, and Navy for further deliberation and a public hearing. The committees were directed to report back within four weeks.

PREMIUM TIMES earlier reported that the bill aimed to empower civil courts to handle trials of military officers for various offences, as against the current court-martial system.

However, in a statement sent to PREMIUM TIMES on Friday, Mr Yar’adua, a retired lieutenant colonel, explained that the bill instead seeks to give military legal officers the authority to represent the armed forces in civil courts, similar to the existing practices in the United States, the United Kingdom and Canada.

He stressed that the bill is not intended to undermine the jurisdiction of court-martials or the military justice system. Rather, it aims to create an expanded legal framework that allows the armed forces to function more effectively in a modern era.

“Specifically, the bill seeks to grant military legal officers the power to represent the Armed Forces in civil courts, similar to practices in countries such as the United States, the United Kingdom, and Canada.

“This provision is not intended to undermine the jurisdiction of court-martials or the military justice system. Rather, it is designed to provide an additional legal framework for the Armed Forces to operate effectively in the modern era,” he said.

Stay Ahead with Premium Times

Add as a preferred source on Google

A further review of the draft bill seen by this newspaper did not show any provision empowering civil courts to try military officers.

Section 291 of the Principal Act is altered to include: In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires, “Military Justice System” means the entire judicial process within the armed forces, including court martial proceedings. “Litigation Expenses” means all costs incurred in representing the Armed Forces in civil court cases, including but not limited to attorney fees, court fees, and associated administrative costs.

Section 123 (2) states that “No service personnel shall be tried based on an investigation report that has not been reviewed by the Directorate of Legal Services”. This mandates that investigation reports be reviewed by the Directorate of Legal Services before they can be tried.

Section 100, which explains offences in relation to court martial, states that (1) No authority convening a general or special court-martial, or conducting summary trial-

(a)may censure, reprimand, or admonish the court or any member, judge advocate, or prosecuting counsel, with respect to the findings or sentence adjudged by the court, or with respect to any other exercises of functions in the conduct of the proceedings, or

(b)attempts to coerce or, by any unauthorised means, influence the action of a court-martial or summary trial in reaching the findings or sentence in any case, or the action of any convening, approving, or reviewing authority with respect to the proceedings.

(3)Without prejudice to the foregoing provisions of subsection (1), the following shall not apply with respect to;

(a)general instruction or information for guidance in military justice if such instruction or information or guidance is designed solely for the purpose of members of a command in the substantive and procedural aspects of courts-martial, or

(b) The general instruction or information, or guidance statements, is given in open court by the judge advocate or president of a general or special court-martial, or prosecuting counsel.

This proposed amendment safeguards judicial independence in military justice by prohibiting undue influence on court-martial proceedings. It also ensures verdicts are based solely on legal merits while allowing general legal guidance.

But during Thursday’s plenary debate, some senators based their contributions on the assumption that the bill sought to shift trials of military officers to civil courts.

For instance, Borno North Senator, Tahir Monguno, argued that the proposed legislation primarily seeks to ensure that offences committed by military personnel are subjected to civil court processes before any conviction is upheld.

Mr Monguno said, “What this bill essentially seeks to do, or achieve, or the lacuna that it seeks to cure is that, one, it desires to give our military law not only in tandem with international best practice, but to bring it in consonance with universally acceptable, democratic principles, one of fair hearing.

“For example, what this bill seeks to achieve is that reports or enquiries set up by military authorities to not serve as a basis for conviction, but rather should be subjected to a trial by a court of law before such conviction shall be upheld. Because, as it is, it violates the principles of … you cannot be a judge in your own cause. So this is a very fundamental principle of law that this bill seeks to achieve.

READ ALSO: In Japan, Tinubu praises Nigerias armed forces

“And then the other arm is the enlistment of forces below the age of 18, which is now under the military law as it is now. This bill seeks to clearly state that people who are below the age of 18 cannot be enlisted into the armed forces.

“This bill also seeks to subject military authorities to the command of the commander-in-chief, that is, the democratically elected president, or in a nutshell, subject weighty authorities to the authority of democratically elected institutions so that they cannot be masters of themselves. Essentially, this bill is very important, and I urge my colleagues to support the second reading of this bill with the speed of light,” he said during the debate.