AFL Deserves Commendation, But Military Discipline Must Go Beyond Administrative Dismissal

That's the headline to a piece in the The New Dawn (Liberia), 28 October 2026.

The decision by the High Command of the Armed Forces of Liberia (AFL) to dishonorably discharge two soldiers following the physical abuse of a civilian woman in Thinkers Village, Paynesville, deserves public commendation. It demonstrates an important commitment to military discipline professional accountability, and the protection of civilians against the abuse of military authority.

According to the reported circumstances, [two] soldiers abandoned their assigned duties to intervene in a private disagreement involving Sergeant Menyon’s girlfriend. What should have remained a minor civilian dispute allegedly escalated into an unacceptable demonstration of military intimidation and physical violence.

Major General Forleh and the AFL High Command therefore deserve recognition for refusing to tolerate misconduct simply because the perpetrators wore military uniforms.

Nevertheless, an important legal and institutional question remains: Why were the soldiers immediately transferred to the Liberia National Police for criminal investigation instead of first being subjected to the applicable military justice procedures under Liberia’s Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ)?

The article takes issue with the decision to administratively separate them rather than court-martial them.

Major General Davidson Forleh and the AFL High Command deserve commendation for demonstrating that military uniforms do not place soldiers above accountability.

Their swift condemnation of the alleged abuse sends an important message that the Armed Forces of Liberia must never become an instrument of intimidation against the very citizens they are sworn to protect.

Nevertheless, Liberia must move beyond the symbolism of disrobing soldiers before cameras.

The real test of military professionalism is not how quickly a commander removes a uniform, but how faithfully the institution applies the law governing those who wear it.

The National Defense Act of 2008 and Liberia’s applicable Uniform Code of Military Justice must remain central to military discipline and accountability.

Administrative dismissal should never be treated as an automatic substitute for military prosecution where military law requires or permits such proceedings.

HRW statement on Indonesian Constitutional Court ruling

Human Rights Watch has issued this statement on the recent landmark decision of the Constitutional Court of Indonesia concerning military court jurisdiction. Excerpt:

The petitioners challenged articles 9(1), 43(3), and 127 of the law, which allow active duty military personnel to be tried in military courts even for crimes ordinarily prosecuted in civilian courts. The Constitutional Court found that the distinction between military offenses and ordinary criminal offenses must be clearly defined. Justice Enny Nurbaningsih said that when an offense has no military character but accountability for it remains within a command-based system, “there is a structural risk that military’s institutional interests will conflict with the need to ensure independent and impartial legal proceedings.”

The Constitutional Court also noted that the military judiciary is not fully integrated into the judicial system overseen by the Supreme Court and urged lawmakers to create a single system. Military judges are active duty soldiers, and investigation, prosecution, and adjudication all take place within the military chain-of-command.

Revisions to the Military Justice Law have been pending for decades. As part of structural reforms that followed the end of authoritarian rule under President Soeharto from 1965 to 1998, the 2004 Armed Forces Law made soldiers subject to civilian courts for ordinary crimes. However, that provision would only take effect when a new military justice law was enacted. The Constitutional Court’s ruling imposes a two-year time frame for those revisions, which successive Indonesian governments have deferred.

The court's 568-page decision can be found here.

Happy St. Crispin's Day

Mark Rylance's version is the Editor's favorite.

Tunisian military court jails a civilian opposition leader

Reuters has the story here. Excerpt:

A Tunisian military court sentenced opposition politician Olfa Hamdi to four ‌years in prison on charges of plotting against ‌state security and inciting the military to disobey orders, her lawyer ​said on Wednesday, the latest move against opponents of President Kais Saied.

Hamdi, the leader of the Third Republic Party who holds US citizenship, was detained at Tunisia's main airport ‌after disembarking from ⁠a flight in February.

Human rights jurisprudence strongly disfavors the prosecution of civilians in military courts. Add Tunisia to the list of states that violate this fundamental principle.

Will the US file a protest?

Condonation of a grounding defense rejected

A Trinidad & Tobago Coast Guard officer is on trial for running his ship aground and related offenses. The High Court had previously stayed the case while considering the officer's claim that his superior had condoned the offense by saying the grounding would be treated as an operational matter. The stay was later lifted and the court-martial is proceeding.