The Nation Newspaper

Tag: Court martial

  • Whether a waiting member of a court martial who did not hear evidence in the case can participate in arriving at its final decision

    Whether a waiting member of a court martial who did not hear evidence in the case can participate in arriving at its final decision

    FACTS

    This appeal is against the decision of the General Court Martial, convened by the Commander, Army Headquarters Garrison, Abuja, for the trial of the Appellant for the offence of murder, contrary to Section 106 (c) of the Armed Forces Act, Cap A20 Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 2004.

    In its judgment which was delivered on November 26,2015, the General Court Martial held that the Appellant did not have the mens rea or guilty intent to kill the deceased and consequently convicted him of the lesser offence of manslaughter and sentenced him to life imprisonment.

    Having obtained the requisite leave, the Appellant who was dissatisfied with the decision appealed to the Court of Appeal.

    ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION

    The Court determined the appeal on a sole issue thus:

    “Whether the Court Martial as constituted had the requisite jurisdiction to try and convict the Appellant?”

    APPELLANT’S SUBMISSION

    It is the Appellant’s contention that the conditions precedent to his trial by the General Court Martial were not complied with as the allegation against him was not reported to his Commanding Officer for prior investigation as stipulated in Sections 123-125 of the Armed Forces Act. It was posited that the Appellant was in consequence prejudiced as he also did not have adequate time to prepare for his defence as he was not served the prescribed pre-trial documents as required by Rule 19 of the Rules of Procedure Army (1972). His right to fair hearing under Section 36 (6) (b) of the 1999 Constitution was thus infringed upon.

    Appellant further contended that the General Court Martial that convicted him changed in composition from hearing to judgment and that an unsworn member participated in the decision. It was contended that on the day of final addresses, a waiting member was drafted in for a Member who was not available and the said Waiting Member was not shown to have been sworn or affirmed but participated in the decision of the General Court Martial, even though he did not have the opportunity of observing the witnesses or hearing their testimony.  This was in contravention of Section 13 of the Armed Forces Act and Rules 2 and 34 of the Army Rules of Procedure and the effect was to render the proceedings a nullity. The cases of YAKUBU vs. CHIEF OF NAVAL STAFF (2004) 1 NWLR (PT 853) 93; (2003) LPELR-10399(CA) and ZURU vs. CHIEF OF NAVAL STAFF (2012) AFLR (PT. 1) and NWALUTU vs. NBA (2019) 8 NWLR (PT 1673) 174 at 193; (2019) LPELR-46916(SC) were referred to.

    RESPONDENT’S SUBMISSION

    The Respondent submits that as required by Section 123 of the Armed Forces Act, the allegation against the Appellant was investigated and the Appellant was interrogated and he also volunteered a statement, just as did the other witnesses. It was opined that the investigation done by the Military Police upon the instructions of the Commanding Officer fulfilled the requirements of the law. It was argued that the Appellant was given adequate time to prepare his defence as the charge was only made and served on the Appellant almost six months after investigation had commenced. It was stated that the Appellant’s contention in this regard was reliance on undue technicalities to defeat the ends of justice. The case of NZEKWE vs. ANAEKWENEGBU (2019) 8 NWLR (PT 1674) 249; (2019) LPELR-49002(SC) was called in aid. It was further stated that fair hearing is for both parties in litigation and that Appellant was given enough time to prepare for and present his case. The case of IGWE vs. THE STATE (2021) LPELR-55336 at 20-21 was cited in support.

    On whether the General Court Martial was properly constituted, it was submitted that a Waiting Member is part of a Court Martial and was duly sworn in with the others, even though as Waiting Members they are only to be seen and not to be heard until their services are required when a substantive member is indisposed, citing OBISI vs. CHIEF OF NAVAL STAFF (2004) LPELR-2184 (SC) at 10. It was contended that it is to be presumed that the Waiting Members and other Members of the General Court Martial were all duly sworn at the inauguration before the General Court Martial started its proceedings. It was stated that the presumption of regularity under Section 167 of the Evidence Act demands the presumption that the inauguration of the General Court Martial was done in a regular manner. The case of NIGERIAN AIRFORCE vs. JAMES (2002) LPELR-3191 (SC) at 16-17 was referred to.

    In conclusion, Respondent argued that the Appellant not having raised any objection to the reconstitution of the General Court Martial when it was done, implied that he had waived his right as held in ADETA vs. NIG ARMY (2016) LPELR-40235 (CA) at 18-19.

    APPELLANT’S REPLY

    In reply, Appellant argued that the requirement of Section 123 of the Armed Forces Act is that the Appellant is to be investigated by his Commanding Officer in the first instance and not the Military Police. It was stated that the discretion under Section 124 of the Armed Forces Act only arises after the mandatory investigation by the Commanding Officer under Section 123 of the Armed Forces Act. It was argued that the constitutional provision for adequate time and facilities to prepare defence is not about length of time from investigation to trial alone, but compliance with the extant provisions that give the accused person the opportunity to prepare his defence.

    On the application of the presumption of regularity, it was stated that it cannot be invoked to alter established facts and that the Records of Appeal captures the fact that Waiting Members were not mentioned among the category of people that took oath.

    RESOLUTION OF THE ISSUE

    As a starting point, the Court noted that the issue for determination raises the question of the jurisdiction of the Court Martial to have tried the allegation. The Court noted that even though a Court Martial is unlike a conventional Court and can be equated to a jury trial, nevertheless the concept of jurisdiction and the incidents of jurisdiction are applicable to a Court Martial with the same force as it does to a conventional Court. See OLOWU vs. THE NIGERIAN NAVY (2011) 12 SC (PT II) 1; (2011) LPELR-3127(SC), MAGAJI vs. THE NIGERIAN ARMY (2008) 3 SCNJ 82; (2008) LPELR-1814(SC).

    Read Also: Finance Ministry embraces performance management system for improved service delivery

    Having stated as above, the court stated that the essence of Sections 123-125 of the Armed Forces Act is for the allegation against a service person to be investigated before a decision is taken on whether he is to be tried summarily or by a Court Martial. The section does not make it mandatory for the Commanding Officer to personally conduct the investigation. Thus, It was not fatal that it was not the Commanding Officer that conducted the investigation, as the purpose and intention of the section was for there to be an investigation. Moreover, since the Appellant was represented by counsel at the General Court Martial, the issue about any defect arising from non-compliance with Section 123 of the Armed Forces Act was deemed to have been waived, having not been raised at the Court Martial. See the cases of IBRAHIM vs. THE STATE (2018) 1 NWLR (PT 1600) 279 at 319-320, MAGAJI vs. THE NIGERIAN ARMY (2008) 8 NWLR (PT 1089) 338 at 384.

    On the Appellant’s contention that he was not given adequate time to prepare for his defence as the pre-trial documents were not served on him, the court examined the Record of Appeal and held that from the Record, it was evident that the Charge was duly served on the Appellant. As such, the pre-trial documents must be taken to have been duly served on the Appellant as a presumption of authenticity and correctness inures in favour of the Records of Appeal. See the cases of HASKE vs. MAGAJI (2009) ALL FWLR (PT 461) 887 at 904; (2008) LPELR-8330(CA), NUHU vs. OGELE (2003) 18 NWLR (PT 852) 251 at 272; (2003) LPELR-2077(SC). In addition, the Appellant who was represented by counsel at all stages of the proceedings did not raise any issue that the Appellant did not have the necessary materials or did not have adequate time to prepare for his defence. See OLUFEMI vs. NIGERIAN ARMY (2022) LPELR (58041) 1 at 28-31.

    On the Appellant’s contention that an unsworn Waiting Member participated in the decision, the Court examined the Records of Appeal and held that from the Records, it was apparent that the President and Members of the Court Martial were duly sworn. Thus, all Members, Waiting or otherwise, were administered the oath. The court then went further to examine the implication of the Waiting Member who didn’t hear evidence but participated in the decision. The Respondent on this point contended that the Appellant had waived his right to object since he did not complain at the time on the participation of the said Waiting Member. The Respondent further cited the case of NDUKWE vs. LPDC (2007) LPELR (1978) 1 at 62 to argue that a mere variation in the composition of a panel or tribunal or court, which does not affect the substance of the inquiry, does not render the judgment or decision a nullity. Disagreeing with the Respondent, the Court held that the current position of the law is that such variation in the composition of the General Court Martial, when the Waiting Member who did not hear the evidence but participated in arriving at the final decision, rendered the entire proceedings a nullity. See the cases of KALEJAIYE vs. LPDC (2019) LPELR (47035) 1 at 18-23, 26-30 and 30-33, NWALUTU vs. NBA (2019) LPELR (46916) 1 at 21-25, 27-29 and 30-32 and MUYIDEEN vs. NBA (2021) LPELR (55885) 1 at 9-10, 29-30, 30-31, 42-44 and 47-48.

    HELD

    The court held that the trial and conviction of the Appellant amounted to a nullity. The Court therefore remitted the case back to the Convening Authority i.e. the Commander Army Headquarters Garrison, Abuja, to convene another General Court Martial.

    Appearances:

    Marx Ikongbeh, Esq. with him, Ms. Chidinma Okafor      

    For Appellant(s)

    Akintola Balogun, Esq.                                                                  

    For Respondent(s)

    Compiled by LawPavilion.

    OGHAEKOR v. NIGERIAN ARMY

    CITATION: (2023) LPELR-60573(CA)

    In the Court of Appeal

    In the Abuja Judicial Division

    Holden at Abuja

    ON THURSDAY, 6TH JULY, 2023

    Suit No: CA/ABJ/CR/264/2021

    Before Their Lordships:

    PETER OLABISI IGE

    Justice, Court of Appeal

    ELFRIEDA OLUWAYEMISI

    WILLIAMS-DAWODU     

    Justice, Court of Appeal

    UGOCHUKWU ANTHONY OGAKWU       

    Justice, Court of Appeal

    Between

    PTE. JOHN OGHAEKOR                                 

    -Appellant(s)

    And

    NIGERIAN ARMY                             

    -Respondent(s)

    Leading judgment delivered by Ugochukwu Anthony Ogakwu, J.C.A.

  • 12 soldiers to face court martial in southeast

    Twelve soldiers serving under the 82 Division of the Nigerian Army (NA), Enugu, Enugu State would soon be arraigned before General Court Martial (GCM) that was setup by the General Officer Commanding (GOC) of the Division, Major General Emmanuel Kabuk.

    A release by the 82 Division Army spokesman (Deputy Director Public Relations), Col. Musa Sagir, the General Officer Commanding (GOC), 82 Division Nigerian Army, (NA) Major General Emmanuel Kabuk had on Monday December 10, 2018 inaugurated a General Court Martial (GCM) to try erring personnel of the division. This, he said, was in line with the importance of discipline to the success or failure of any organization, particularly the military, – in peace or in war.

    In his inaugural speech at the 82 Division Officers’ Mess, Abakpa Cantonment Enugu, Kabuk enjoined members of the GCM to adhere strictly to the rules of law and strict obedience to the constitution of Federal Republic of Nigeria (CFRN) 1999 as amended.

    He described discipline as the bed rock of military profession. According to him, “the operational efficiency of any military force is a mix of sound administration and rigid disciplinary measures.

    “Thus, disciplinary measures in the military to which court martial belong, are aimed at guaranteeing a highly disciplined and battle ready army, which is in line with the Chief of Army Staff vision – “To have a professionally responsive Nigerian army in the discharge of its Constitutional roles”. In this vein, trials in the NA must be organized and administered in accordance with provisions of the  1999 constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (CFRN) as amended”, he  added.

    “The essence of the GCM, in addition to the dispensation of justice, is to send the right signal to the NA personnel that may fall into the temptation of violating extant rules and regulations, – that acts of indiscipline will be met with appropriate disciplinary action.”

    He charged all the parties in the cases to avoid unnecessary techanicalities that would delay, the trials and in the process wastes alot of resources.

    “Let me recall both Section 36 of the 1999 CFRN (as amended) and Section 122 of the Armed Forces Act, CAP A20, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria 2004 which emphasize that expeditious and speedy trials form the basis of which fair trial must rest”, the GOC stated.

    Kabuk further reiterated the popular beliefs that justice delayed is justice denied.

    Colonel Edwàrd Abore is the President of the GCM. He promised to administer justice in line with Armed Forces Act Cap A20 law of Federal and CFRN 1999 as amended. He made it clear that all the accused are entitled to legal representation of their choices.

    Twelve soldiers will be appearing before the GCM on various charges.

    Recall that in the military, offences that cannot be summarily tried are the ones that are referred for court martial as contained in Section 124, Sub Section 6 of the Armed Forces Act.

  • General urges Appeal Court to stay court martial’s verdict

    The Court of Appeal in Abuja has been asked to restrain the Army from executing the July 2017 judgement of the Special Court Martial, which recommended the demotion of Maj.-Gen. Ibrahim Sani to Brig. Gen.

    The request is contained in a motion on notice filed by Gen. Sani, in which he is praying the court to order parties in the case to maintain the status quo, pending the determination of the motion he filed on December 6, 2017.

    Gen Sani was tried on a nine-count charge before the Special Court Martial, with Colonel S. I. Musa as the Judge Advocate. He was convicted on July 20, 2017.

    He said, in a supporting affidavit, that the motion for stay was informed by the Army’s delay in releasing the court martial’s record of proceedings to enable him file a formal appeal.

    Gen Sani said he had previously filed an application for leave to enable him appeal against the judgment upon its confirmation by the Army Council. He said he withdrew it because of the Army’s alleged refusal to make the record of proceedings available to him on time.

    He said despite being aware that he was taking steps to challenge the judgement, the respondent was seeking to transfer him to Borno State in order to frustrate his effort.

    The Army, in its counter-affidavit, urged the court to refuse the motion because there was nothing left to stay since the judgment had been confirmed by the Army Council and the decision communicated to the applicant.

    The motion could not be heard yesterday because the new lawyer engaged by the applicant, Mahmud Magaji (SAN), sought a short time to enable him familiarise himself with the case.

    The Justice Abubakar Yahaya-led three man panel adjourned to March 15.

  • Human right abuse: Army Court sentences soldier to death

    Human right abuse: Army Court sentences soldier to death

    One soldier been sentenced to death, while others are to serve various  jail terms following the judgment  delivered today by  the General Court Martial  of 7 Division Nigeria Army sitting in Maiduguri,  Borno State to investigate and try allege human right abuse of troops of operation Lafiya Dole on members of the public.

    While delivering  his  judgments, the President of the Court Martial, Brigadier General Gbenga Olusegun Adesina, explained  that the offences were  contrary to Nigerian Army’s Rules of Engagement (ROE) as well as  Nigerian Laws and Geneva Conventions which Nigeria is signatory to, stressing that, “ the Nigerian Army as a professional Army holds these laws in high esteem”.

    Lance Corporal John Godwin who is to face death sentence was charged with murder, punishable under Section 106 (a) of Armed Forces Acts (Cap A20), Laws of the Federation of Nigeria (LFN) 2004, for killing five rescued civilians in Yamteke town of Borno State in November, 2015.

    The court availed that the  civilians were earlier rescued by troops of the soldier’s battalion and were taken for investigation when Cpl John Godwin   shot five to death.

    The deceased, according to him, include Saleh Bello, Ibrahim Bello, Abba Ali, Abubakar Musa and Isa Garba between the ages of 17 and 22.

    “Godwin has run afoul of human rights violations and the rules of engagement, while fighting Boko Haram. You’re guilty of murder as charged before this court martial and sentenced you to death,” said Adesina.

    The courts also slammed jail sentences on other soldiers for various offences including manslaughter and  illegal possession of fire arms and ammunitions.

    Sergeant Innocent Ototo, got jailed for life imprisonment on charge of manslaughter after he tortured  and killed  a 13 year old boy Yakubu Isa,  whom  he alleged   stole his phone.  The incident happened at Zamanbari area of Maiduguri metropolis in Borno State.

    Two other soldiers; Lance Corporal Benjamin Osage and Private Sunday Onwe were sentenced to 20 years imprisonment each for offences bordering on manslaughter and illegal possession of fire arms and ammunition.

    “Sunday Awe, a private soldier attached to 112 Task Force Battalion, Mafa in Borno state is also sentenced for 20 months for unlawful procession of 1, 339 rounds of ammunition,” Brig. Gen. Adesina said.

    He added that Private Bitrus Yunana and Lance Corporal Ayuba Jonathan have also each been charged and sentenced to five years jail term for unlawful procession of 925 and 450 rounds of ammunition on August 2, 2016.

  • Demoted general to challenge court martial’s verdict

    Demoted general to challenge court martial’s verdict

    A major general, Patrick Adebayo Falola, who was demoted to brigadier-general by a military court martial, has vowed to appeal the verdict.

    A special Court Martial found him guilty of unlawfully admitting students for clinical training without due clearance from Army Headquarters.

    Falola was director, 68 Army Reference Hospital, Yaba, Lagos. His demotion last Friday is subject to the approval of the Nigeria Army Council.

    His lawyer, Enokela Onyilo-Uloko, a retired wing commander, said his client was unjustly convicted.

    He said it was an attempt to tarnish Falola’s outstanding records as a distinguished medical officer.

    According to Onyilo-Uloko, there was no explicit law forbidding the act for which his client was convicted.

    “There is no law or instruction put on the ground by the Armed Forces that a senior officer needs to take permission from a higher authority before allowing such training of Nigerian citizens.

    “No such law or instruction was tendered in evidence, but they are saying he should have used his initiative.

    “When there is no law criminalising an act, when that act is done, it does not amount to a criminal offence,” Onyilo-Uloko said.

    According to him, the Army’s records showed that Falola was commissioned as a lieutenant in 1982, adding that the senior consultant ophthalmologist chaired the Ophthalmological Society of Nigeria (Lagos State chapter).

    He said his client commanded several other military hospitals, such as the Military Hospital, Lagos; 3 Division Hospital, Jos, and the Armed Forces Specialist Hospital in Kano, all of which he upgraded.

    “He transformed the Bonny Camp (Lagos) Eye Centre to a world-class status, and introduced laser equipment worth millions at no cost to the Army.

    “He is reputed to be an exemplary military administrator, clinician and surgeon. He was commended for his prompt and professional handling of cholera outbreak in Jos, and proactive initiatives to prevent Lassa fever and Ebola outbreaks in the barracks.

    “In all these years, there has never been a breach of military discipline reported against him,” the lawyer added.

    Falola admitted international students from Espan Formation University, Cotonou, in Benin Republic, between July and September, 2016.

    President of the Court Martial, James Gbum, said Falola’s conduct amounted to fraudulent use of Armed Forces’ property.

    He acquitted him on the charge of conduct prejudice to the service, but convicted him on fraudulent misapplication of hospital’s property.

    “This court is compelled to award a higher punishment under sections 103 and 66 of the Armed Forces Act Cap A 20 Laws of the Federation 2004.

    “The court has taken into consideration the service record of the convicted senior officer, the touching plea in mitigation by the defence council as well as the demeanour of the convicted officer.

    “But we have also taken into consideration the senior officer’s seniority, rank, experience and the regimental tradition of the Armed Forces.

    “This court has discharged and acquitted the convicted officer on the first charge, on the second offence, the sentence is reduction in rank to brigadier general,” he said.

  • Court martial: Three soldiers appeal death sentence

    Court martial: Three soldiers appeal death sentence

    Three of the 12 soldiers sentenced to death on September 15 by a court martial have challenged the rulling at the Court of Appeal, Abuja.

    The men, Igomu Emmanuel, Stephen Clement and Andrew Ngbede  faulted the trial leading to their conviction and urged the court to quash the decision.

    They raised 11 grounds of appeal in their case filed for them last Thursday by their lawyer, Godwin Obla (SAN).

    The appellants said the charge on which they were tried and convicted “is vague, disjointed, imprecise and incoherent”, adding that they did not understand  it.

    They argued that not only were their names not stated on the charge, it also violated Section 36 (6) of the constitution, which entitled an accused to be informed of the details and nature of the offence for which he was charged.

    The appellants further argued that the General Court Martial erred in law and came to a perverse decision by convicting them in respect of the offence of conspiracy and failed to consider the defence of  alibi, which they raised, but which was not investigated by the court martial.

    “The General Court Martial erred in law and thus occasioned a miscarriage of justice when it disregarded the objection of the defence counsel raised before and at the arraignment of the appellants on the defective nature of the charge brought against them.”

    The soldiers said they were charged and convicted at large under Section 114 of the Armed Forces Act and that the charge did not tie the offence they allegedly committed to any of the subsections of Section 114 of the Armed Forces Act.

    They said Section 114 did not define the offence of criminal conspiracy as an offence known to law.

    The appellants argued that the first count of the charge “is ambiguous, uncertain and defective”, because they were charged under Section 114 of the Armed Forces Act, but punished under Section 97 (1) of the Penal Code Law.

    They also faulted the third count of the charge for being “uncertain and defective” because they were charged under Section 95 of the Armed Forces Act, which provided a punishment of life imprisonment if convicted, but were sentenced to death under Section 106 of the Act.

    The appellants said the General Court Martial based its decision on an equivocal, indirect, negative, uncorroborated and suspicious circumstantial evidence in convicting them.

    They said the General Officer Commanding (GOC) 7 Division, Maj.-Gen. Ahmadu Mohammed, whom they were accused of attempting to murder, was not invited by the prosecution to give evidence on the alleged attempt on his life.

    The appellants also noted that no ballistic evidence was produced to show that it was their shot that hit Maj.-Gen. Mohammed’s car.

    They contended that none of the witnesses identified any of them as the person who shot at the GOC’s vehicle, and that the court martial merely relied on circumstantial evidence, which did not lead conclusively and indisputably that any of their shots was the one, if any, that hit the rear right door of the command’s Sport Utility Vehicle (SUV).

    No date has been fixed for the hearing of the appeal.

     

  • Court martial: Agbakoba sues Army chief

    Court martial: Agbakoba sues Army chief

    Former Nigeria Bar Association (NBA) President Olisa Agbakoba (SAN) has sued the Chief of Army Staff, Brig.-Gen. D.T. Ndiomu, at the Federal High Court in Abuja, for the conviction and sentence of 12 soldiers by a military court martial.

    He joined the Attorney-General of the Federation, Mohammed Adoke (SAN), in the suit.

    Agbakoba is praying the court to enforce the soldiers’ human rights.

    He is also challenging the Nigerian Army General Court Martial’s decision to convict and sentence the soldiers to death by firing squad for mutiny and other offences on September 16.

    According to him, the court martial’s composition is unconstitutional and contrary to Section 36(1) of the 1999 Constitution, which guarantees a fair trial to the accused by a tribunal constituted in such manner as to secure its independence and impartiality.

    In his affidavit in support of the originating motion, the senior advocate said members of the court martial were army officers appointed by Brig.-Gen. Ndiomu.

    They are Brig.-Gen. C.C. Okonkwo (president); Col. T.S. Nurseman (judge advocate); Col. T.O. Olowomeye (member); Col. I.G. Lassa (member); Col. J.K. Feboke (member); Lt.-Col. C.R. Nnebeife (member); Major I. Yusuf (member); Major T.A. Yakubu (member); and Major A.E. Martins (waiting member).

    Agbakoba said the prosecutors, Lt-Col. A.A. Audu and Lt.-Col. Ukpe Upke, are also army officers, adding that the court martial’s independence and impartiality were not secure in the soldiers’ trial.

    “This is because those who participated in the events related to the court martial are army officers. They are the investigators, prosecutors, president, judge advocate, waiting member and other members of the court martial,” he added.

    The suit is filed under the Fundamental Rights (Enforcement Procedure) Rules 2009.

    It is seeking four reliefs: “A declaration that the convening and composition of Army General Court Martial, which convicted and sentenced the 12 soldiers, is contrary to Section 36(1) of the 1999 Constitution.

    “A declaration that the decision of the Nigerian Army General Court Martial, presided over by Brig.-Gen C.C. Okonkwo, delivered at the Army Headquarters in Abuja on September 16, violated their right to fair hearing.

    “A declaration that Section 133(3)(4) & (5) of the Armed Forces Act dealing with the convening authority of court martial is inconsistent with Section 36(1) of the constitution and is therefore null and void;

    “An order setting aside the decision of the court martial.”

    The suit is yet to be assigned to a judge.

  • Court martial of 20 soldiers for leaking information to Boko Haram begins

    The court martial of soldiers over their involvement in giving information to Boko Haram and other acts of misconduct has begun at the 3 Armouured Division, Maxwell Khoba Cantonment, Rukuba, Jos, Plateau State.

    The trial is being conducted behind closed doors. Reporters who were invited to witness last week’s inauguration of the court martial panel by GOC 3 Div., Major General Ebiobowei Awala, were barred from the trial which started on Tuesday.

    Although 18 accused soldiers including an officer, a Lieutenant, were present during the inauguration of the panel, there are 20 names on the list of those charged.

    The suspects are accused of committing offences collectively and individually against the Federal Republic of Nigeria in the course of carrying out their professional assignment.

    The suspects are serving at military formations under the 3 Armoured Division.

    Most of them are serving in the Joint Task Force (JTF) in Maiduguri code named “Pperation Restore Order” and the Special Task Force (STF) on Jos crises code named “Operation Safe Haven”

    Major General Awala during the inauguration of the court martial said the suspects were investigated for various offences ranging from “communication with the enemy, cowardly behaviours, murder to manslaughter, among others”.

    It was learnt that the offences might not be far from acts against rule of military engagement during the invasion of civilian population in Baga, Borno State by men of the JTF “Operation Restore Order”.

    Some of the accused soldiers are those said to be leaking security information to agents of Boko Haram in Maiduguri when troops were massively deployed in the area following the declaration of a state of emergency in three Northeast states – Borno, Yobe and Adamawa – in May

    It was gathered that during the first sitting of the panel on Tuesday, two of the accused soldiers Audu Adamu of the 33 Brigade Bauchi and Sabo Sadiq of the STF Jos – pleaded not guilty to the charges read to them.

    Leading a team of counsel to defend Adams is Mr. James Attah Adokwu, a lawyer.

    Adokwu told our correspondent after the session that his client had been “slammed with two offences”.

    He said he observed that the two charges were duplicated, “So we are already on course and I have all it takes to defend my client and make sure justice is done.”

    After taking the case of the two accused persons, the panel adjourned for three days to reconvene tomorrow for continuation of the hearing.