Does Nigeria's National Industrial Court have jurisdiction over cases brought by military personnel?

We'll find out soon. Details of the test case can be found here. The facts alleged by a former general officer, if true, are disturbing.

Remember and honor

 

The right to a fair trial in India's military legal system

The disciplinary process under the military law begins after a charge has been preferred by the Commanding Officer (CO) of the accused.  In the case of trial by a court-martial, the officer who convenes the court is equally responsible for its correctness.  The procedure for hearing of charge is contained under Army Rule 22, which was amended in 1993. Before amendment, the Army Rule 22 read as follows: 

Hearing of Charge: (1) Every charge against a person subject to the Act other than an officer, shall be heard in the presence of the accused. The accused shall have full liberty to cross-examine any witness against him, and to call any witnesses and make any statement in his defence.

 

(2) The commanding officer shall dismiss a charge brought before him if, in his opinion the evidence does not show that some offence under the Act has been committed, and may do so if, in his discretion, he is satisfied that the charge ought not to be proceeded with.

 

(3) At the conclusion of the hearing of a charge, if the commanding officer is of opinion that the charge ought to be proceeded with, he shall, without unnecessary delay:

 

(a) dispose of the case summarily under section 80 in accordance with the manner and form in Appendix III; or

(b) refer the case to the proper superior military authority; or

(c) adjourn the case for the purpose of having the evidence reduced to writing; or

(d) if the accused is under the rank of warrant officer, order his trial by summary court-martial.

 

Provided that the commanding officer shall not order trial by summary court-martial without reference to the officer empowered to convene a district court-martial or on active service a summary general court martial for the trial of the alleged offender unless either:

 

a) the offence is one which he can try by summary court-martial without reference to that officer; or

(b) he considers that there is grave reason for immediate action and such reference cannot be made without detriment to discipline.

1993 Amendment

In 1993, few changes were made in the Army Rules 1954. The Army Rule 22 dealing with the hearing of charge, after amendment, reads as follows:

 

Hearing of Charge: (1) Every charge against a person subject to the Act shall be heard by the Commanding Officer in the presence of the accused. The accused shall have full liberty to cross-examine any witness against him, and to call such witness and make such statement as may be necessary for his defence:

 

Provided that where the charge against the accused arises as a result of investigation by a court of inquiry, wherein the provisions of the rule 180 have been complied with in respect of that accused, the commanding officer may dispense with the procedure in sub-rule (1).

(2) The commanding officer shall dismiss a charge brought before him, if, in his opinion, the evidence does not show that an offence under the Act has been committed, and may do so if, in his discretion, he is satisfied that the charge ought not to be proceeded with.

Provided that the commanding officer shall not dismiss a charge which he is debarred to try under sub-section (2) of section 120 without reference to superior authority as specified therein.

 

(3) After compliance of sub-rule (1), if the commanding officer is of opinion that the charge ought to be proceeded with, he shall within a reasonable time –

 

(a) dispose of the case under section 80 in accordance with the manner and form in Appendix III; or

(b) refer the case to proper superior military authority; or

(c) adjourn the case for the purpose of having the evidence reduced to writing; or

(d) if the accused is below the rank of warrant officer, order his trial by summary court martial:

Provided that the commanding officer shall not order trial by summary court martial without a reference to the officer empowered to convene a district court-martial or on active service a summary general court-martial for the trial of the alleged offender unless:

 

(a) the offence is one which he can try by a summary court-martial without any reference to that officer.

 

(b) he considers that there is grave reason for immediate action and such reference cannot be made without detriment to discipline.

 

(4) Where the evidence taken in accordance with sub-rule (3) of this discloses an offender other than the offence which was the subject of the investigation, the commanding officer may frame suitable charge(s) on the basis of the evidence so taken as well as the investigation of the original charge. 

Safeguarding the role of America's military lawyers

Protect Democracy United's Zachary T. West has written this primer -- well worth study. Excerpt:

THE JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL (JAG) Corps is critical to maintaining good order and discipline across the U.S. military, providing legal assistance to servicemembers and their families, and ensuring lawful combat operations. Yet this institution is facing unprecedented challenges, including the no-cause firing of the Army and Air Force’s top JAG officers and the Pentagon’s announcement that it would reassign judge advocates to serve as temporary immigration law judges and backfill vacancies in U.S. Attorney’s offices. This paper discusses the history and purpose of the JAG Corps, recent challenges to its independence and ability to serve as a trusted advisor, and how Congress can strengthen U.S. military readiness by protecting the JAG Corps from improper influence and misuse.

Juridictions militaires

A reader has asked for a link to the French Senate report cited here. Here is a working link for Italy. If any readers can find other pertinent Senate links, please add them in a comment.