Attorney General v. Miyogo

The Court of Appeal of Kenya has ruled that it was improper to jail and discharge a 10-year member of the Defence Forces who refused for religious reasons to work on Saturdays. A summary of the decision can be found here; the judgment is not yet on the court's website.

The controversy began over 13 years ago.

The MAG Affair

Professor Benjamin Porat has written this disturbing op-ed for the Jerusalem Post about the ramifications of what is now becoming known as The MAG Affair. Excerpt:

Alongside the firm condemnation of the actions of the military advocate-general and her associates, it is also necessary to warn against those seeking to take advantage of this affair for improper purposes. For example, some are now pushing forcefully for the military advocate-general’s alleged misconduct to lead to the acquittal of suspects accused of abuse at the Sde Teiman detention facility.

To them, it must be said plainly: the rot revealed in the military advocate-general’s office does not automatically clear the suspects of abuse, nor does it justify the grave act committed by those who crossed the red line by storming an IDF base in protest of the arrests. 

Guilt in this case is not a zero-sum game: the potential guilt of the military advocate-general does not equate to the innocence of the suspects in the abuse case. Both matters must be thoroughly investigated, and all those found guilty must be held fully accountable.

Equally troubling are the supporters of the judicial overhaul, who make no secret of their intent to exploit the military advocate-general affair to advance their attempted overhaul against the judiciary. [Yifat] Tomer-Yerushalmi has done a valuable service for Justice Minister Yariv Levin; and Simcha Rothman, chairman of the Knesset Constitution, Law, and Justice Committee, in their efforts to weaken and take control of the judiciary.

It will be a while before this explosive situation resolves itself. The consequences for several of Israel's politics, defense establishment, judiciary, and other institutions of government could be grave.

R v Allison, 2025 CMAC 3 - Jurisdiction of military courts over civilians

On Thursday, 6 November 2025, the Court Martial Appeal Court of Canada (CMAC) handed down its judgment in R v Allison, 2025 CMAC 3.  It did not come as much of a surprise to counsel for the appellant.  Following the hearing of the appeal, counsel anticipated that the Court would overturn R v Wehmeier, 2014 CMAC 5.

The Court - comprised of an impressive panel of Chief Justice Gleason, accompanied by Stratas and Trotter JJA - did not expressly indicate that it was overturning Wehmeier.  However, from the perspective of the Appellant, it certainly could appear that they were.

The judgment was not particularly lengthy.  Some observers might be disappointed with the dearth of discussion in the judgment relating to the history of the jurisdiction of the Code of Servicer Discipline over civilians.  And they would be justified in that disappointment.  Similarly, there was negligible discussion of the broad panoply of scholarship on this subject.  This judgment has the potential to inform other jurisdictions, in particular, other Common Law jurisdictions.  Consequently, one might have reasonably expected a more profound discussion of the elements at issue.

The question now is whether the Appellant will seek Leave to Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada (SCC).  A unanimous decision of the CMAC precludes appeal as of right.

Some observers may recall the CMAC judgment in R v McGregor, 2020 CMAC 8 - also a unanimous judgment of the CMAC - for which the SCC granted Leave to Appeal, resulting in the judgment at R v McGregor, 2023 SCC 4.  McGregor focused on the extra-territorial application of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.  Time will tell if Allison will also benefit from a similar opportunity.  

In any event, it is certain to be the subject of scholarly analysis in the months to come.  Ironically, this judgment, which reinforced a broad application of military law over civilians, was handed down the same day that the Standing Committee on National Defence was examining Bill C-11, which (among other facets) will limit the jurisdiction of the Code of Service Discipline over 'criminal offences of a sexual nature' that are alleged to have occurred in Canada.

A novel affirmative defense

Have you considered a "I'm allergic to driving slowly" defense to dangerous-driving charges at court-martial?

Curiously, a Royal Navy officer appears to be doing just that in his trial at Bulford Military Court--according to a news report in The Telegraph (UK). His counsel also suggests that his passengers' allegations are made up, or words to that effect. See also an article in the Daily Mail (UK).

The case of “30203611 Lt T J GALLAGHER, HMS RALEIGH” appears to have begun on 27 October 2025 and may continue up to 14 November.

Unlike a U.S. court-martial, a driving disqualification order can be issued to align the outcome of the case with that of a civilian court considering the same offence.

Polish and U.S. military law

Szymon Kulmaszewskit, A Comparative Analysis of the Military Justice Systems of Poland and the United States v. America.

Most authors agree that “military justice” does not have a clearly defined normative definition. Nevertheless, the term is anchored in the area of institutionalized activities of a military organization (armed forces) and for this reason it functions in the language of both legal science and military science. The text presents a synthetic outline of the history of military justice in Poland and in the U.S. Underlying the assumptions of the military justice system, such as the need to exercise jurisdiction over military persons, and the need to handle military cases within the framework of separated, common features can be discerned. Due to the fact that problems of the creation and application of military law broadens the scope of normative terminology to include the concept of military justice system, and with it the concept of a military case, this study engages in a broad interpretation of those concepts, and the result yields some surprises. For one, the enforcement of military law runs in a manner separated from the general order in many legal systems. There is no single international standard for military justice: it heavily reflects domestic attitudes about the role of armed forces in society. Even for areas of seeming commonality such as the influence of international human rights law, nations differ in how they apply international standards to the military. Thus, conventional wisdom would hold that military justice systems will vary greatly by country as matters of national prerogative. And yet the common organic features of the military justice system of Poland and the U.S. bear stunning similarities. This, we argue, reveals a common law for military justice, and lays the groundwork for further comparative law studies with a focus on military justice.

Promotion case heard by Trinidad & Tobago Court of Appeal

Trinidad & Tobago Newsday has this informative report on a case that was heard yesterday in the Court of Appeal, concerning the denied promotion of a member of the Defence Force to warrant officer rank. The court has ordered supplemental briefing on one issue. We'll keep an eye out for the decision.

High Court upholds war injury pension benefits to injured soldier who fell in a rivulet during an anti-terrorist operation

The Punjab & Haryana High Court (India) has upheld the grant of “War Injury Pension” by the Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT) to a soldier who was injured due to a fall in a rivulet during an anti-terror operation. The soldier was released “Disability Pension” by the Government but refused “War Injury Pension”, a higher form of disability pension, on the pretext that such an injury could not be treated as a disability while in action, and that only injuries sustained in active operations due to bullets, blasts, mine-blasts etc would qualify for War Injury Pension.

On a petition filed by the soldier in the AFT, the said tribunal granted him relief holding that all injuries that were attributable to military service in operational areas were to be treated as qualifying for War Injury Pension, and that the same was also provided in the instructions issued by the Government of India.

The judgment of the AFT was however challenged by the Government in the High Court. The High Court, upholding the judgment of the AFT, has held that all such accidental injuries in operational areas were covered for grant of War Injury Pension, and that the same had also been held by the Supreme Court of India. The High Court has observed that even disabilities due to natural illnesses in such areas were covered for war injury benefits.

A news-report on the judgment in The Times of India can be accessed here.

Orders to execute

"Whom Will Our Military Be Ordered to Execute Next?" former Secretary of the Air Force Frank Kendall asks here in The New York Times. Excerpt:

Our military leaders are trained to evaluate the legality of orders they are given. As part of their professional education, the American values of respect for and compliance with the law are reinforced throughout military officers’ careers. They all understand that they have a duty to challenge any order they believe may be illegal — and disobey any order they know to be illegal.

The order to preemptively execute alleged drug traffickers at sea has never been considered a legal act before. . . .

Ex-MAG arrested

So says this BBC report. "The former top lawyer in the Israeli military has been arrested, as a political showdown deepens over the leaking of a video that allegedly shows severe abuse of a Palestinian detainee by Israeli soldiers."

North Dakota legislators consider bill to keep state's Code of Military Justice in sync with UCMJ

Egad! An AI-generated summary of a state legislative hearing! There's a first time for everything, even up here in the glass-enclosed newsroom high above . . . well, you know the rest.

Further developments in the Sde Teiman case

Israeli news accounts indicate that the recently-resigned MAG went missing for some hours, but was later found safe at a beach. A note was found in her abandoned car. Details here. The five reservists who are defendants in the Sde Teiman court-martial, meanwhile, have claimed that the release of a damaging video prevented a fair trial. Background on how the controversy was kept under wraps for a time canbe foound here. From Ynet's account:

The [junior MAG] officer, recently promoted to a senior enforcement role, revealed her involvement during a follow-up interview after initial polygraph results were inconclusive. She told a Shin Bet interrogator that she had been part of the team that leaked the video footage, and that she and others had misled the High Court of Justice about the leak’s origins.

A Times of Israel blog post observes:

Why it matters

The Sde Teiman affair has become a litmus test for trust in Israel’s legal and military institutions.

For some, it exemplifies “left-wing sabotage” against the IDF.

For others, it exposes how efforts to protect individual reputations can drive state systems toward self-destruction.

The facts remain:

• Violence occurred — its legality is still under judicial review.
• No rape took place.
• The publication was misleading.
• The leak inflicted severe damage on Israel’s reputation.
• The prosecutor’s resignation laid bare systemic flaws in both military and civil justice.

Israel's MAG resigns under fire

Maj.-Gen. Yifat Tomer-Yerushalmi, Israel's Military Advocate General, has resigned under fire after taking responsibility for authorizing the release of a video showing maltreatment of Palestinian detainees. This Jerusalem Post article provides useful background. It is an understatement to say that this is a big deal with serious political and defense implications, especially at a time when the issue of conscription of Haredi men is once again front and center in Israeli politics. 

The IDF commented that the MAG's "replacement will be 'one capable of meeting the significant challenges currently facing the MAG Corps, foremost among them the protection of IDF soldiers,'” An ongoing prosecution based on allegations of abuse at the Sde Teiman detention facility has been a lightning rod, sparking demonstrations in support of the five accused soldiers. Members of the Knesset as well as family members of the soldiers have also objected to the prosecutions.

Watch this space.

"The President Told Me To"

A timely and important article has just been published in the Virginia Law Review: Lauren S. Emmerich, The President Told Me To: The Public Authority Defense in the Trump Era. Excerpt:

. . . The president does not have the authority to authorize forcible entry into the Capitol Building or to authorize assault or destruction of property. In other words, the president cannot just authorize violations of general criminal law.

This straightforward conclusion is precisely why the actual authority standard is the correct one. It operates to limit the civilian’s just-following-orders defense to only those cases where the official truly could have authorized the conduct, thereby avoiding abuse of the defense and widespread deputization to engage in violence. This requirement aligns the defense with entrapment by estoppel and the superior orders defenses, both of which require actual authority by the one advising or ordering and both of which have adopted limits to prevent abuse. Bringing the public authority defense in line with those doctrines simplifies the universe of reliance defenses and sets forth clear principles for its applicability. Although Barker initially appeared promising to many defendants when it laid out a potentially lenient reliance standard, it is very likely limited to its facts. Should President Trump, or any other president, direct others to take unlawful actions, those individuals should heed the example of the January 6 defendants and know that a “following orders” defense will not be available to them. Instead, it is personal responsibility that will preserve the rule of law.

Not military justice, but . . .

On October 21, 2025, the European Court of Human Rights handed down its decision in Naser v. Denmark, Application No. 46571/22 (Eur. Ct. Hum. Rgts. 4th Section). At issue was whether Iraqi nationals who were allegedly tortured and otherwise abused by Iraqi government personnel had a claim against Denmark based on a Danish unit's presence in the area. The court's decision followed three investigations by Denmark's independent Military Prosecution Service and litigation in the Danish civilian court system. In the end, the court held that Denmark had no liability on any of the several claims the applicants had asserted. The court's press release states:

Decision of the Court

Article 3 (prohibition of torture and inhuman or degrading treatment/investigation)

The Court had to determine whether the applicants fell under Denmark’s jurisdiction under Article 1 of the Convention. Where a State, through its agents, exercised control and authority over an individual, and thus jurisdiction, the State was under an obligation under Article 1 to secure to that individual, rights and freedoms guaranteed under the Convention.

The Court examined whether, based on the facts, the Danish State, through its agents, had exercised control over the applicants. Having heard extensive evidence, both the High Court and the Supreme Court had concluded that the Iraqi forces had had full control of the operation. More specifically, no Danish forces had participated in the detention of the applicants. Moreover, neither Danish forces nor the forces under their operational control had subjected the applicants to inhuman treatment.

Having regard to the very detailed and thorough assessments carried out by the High Court and the Supreme Court based on the extensive evidence presented to them, the Court found that the applicants had failed to substantiate any elements or shortcomings which could lead it to depart from the domestic courts’ findings of fact.

The Court was not satisfied that the applicants had been within the jurisdiction of Denmark for the purposes of Article 1 of the Convention. It followed that the applicants’ complaints of ill-treatment under Article 3 were inadmissible.

The Court went on to examine the applicants’ complaints concerning the Danish authorities’ investigation into their allegations. It noted that three independent investigations had been carried out, which had found on all three occasions that there had been no reason to bring charges against Danish soldiers. Each time new information had come to light about alleged ill-treatment of the detained persons during the operation, whether via the media or by the disclosure of new evidence, it had immediately prompted an investigation or a re-investigation of the case.

The Court found it doubtful that the applicants had been within the jurisdiction of Denmark in respect of the procedural obligation under Article 3 to carry out an effective investigation, but even if they had been, there was no indication that the Danish authorities had failed to carry out an effective investigation or as argued by the applicants, that the investigation had been flawed.

The procedural aspect of Article 3 was inadmissible.

Article 6 (right to a fair trial)

The Court noted that the applicants had been granted free legal aid for the proceedings before both the High Court and the Supreme Court and they had been represented throughout by counsel. They had not pointed to any decisions of the domestic courts refusing to allow them to give evidence, nor had they specified what evidence they had allegedly been prevented from submitting in a timely manner. In the Court’s view the applicants had not substantiated their assertion that not having had access to free legal aid to cover their travel expenses to be present during the entire trial had been arbitrary or disproportionate. As regards the non-disclosure of certain information, the Court noted that it had primarily been names that had been redacted and the applicants had failed to explain and substantiate why or how that very limited redacted information had been essential for their case.

The Court concluded that the applicants had been given access to a court, at two levels of jurisdiction, for their compensation claim, and that the proceedings had been fair, the adversarial principle and the principle of equality of arms having been complied with.

Article 13 (right to an effective remedy)

There existed no arguable claim under Article 13 of the Convention, the Court finding no indication that the Danish authorities had failed to carry out an effective investigation as required by Article 3 of the Convention. This part of the complaint was inadmissible.

Onr judge concurred, but noted that the court had written more than it should have, since the required jurisdictional link between the events and Denmark had not been established. It seems a fair point.

St. Crispin's Day

 

Hasan--death penalty--Fort Hood shootings

MSN is repeating an article by Laura Mitchell in the Charlotte Observer, that, Hegseth Seeks Authorization for Military Execution. The article reports that.

"The Army confirmed it has initiated procedural measures to enact Hasan’s death sentence, upheld after all legal appeals were exhausted in April. (Emphasis added.)"

Not all his legal appeals are exhausted.

Our post at CAAFlog explains more about his further legal appeals and the likelihood that Hasan will be executed soon.

Where are we in Hasan

We mention that Gray was convicted and sentenced to death in 1987-88 and his sentence was affirmed on appeal through the military appellate process--he is yet to be executed.

Civilian to be tried again by Lebanon's military court, this time in person

This time the accused is a popular singer, Fadel Shaker. He had already been tried in absentia. Excerpt from this report from LBCI:

The four absentia convictions against Chaker include the 2013 Aabra events. The judicial body annulled charges of direct participation in the killing of Lebanese army officers and personnel but convicted him of involvement in murder and terrorist acts, sentencing him to 15 years of hard labor.

In another case, Chaker was sentenced to five years for harming Lebanon’s relations with another state and inciting sectarianism. He received a seven-year sentence for money laundering aimed at financing terrorist acts. 

The fourth case resulted in a 15-year sentence for involvement in terrorism through providing logistical support.

Human rights jurisprudence strongly disfavors the trial of civilians in military courts.

U.S. military justice by the numbers: NJPs now outpace courts-martial 24 to 1

The U.S. military services reported their military justice statistics for FY 2024, as required by Article 146a of the UCMJ. The 2024 numbers are available here. 

One trend is that court-martial numbers continue their decrescendo while nonjudicial punishment (NJP, the disciplinary sanctions authorized by UCMJ article 15) remains prevalent. By the numbers: 

Service	Strength	NJP	CMs	NJP:CM ratio	GCM	SPCM-BCD	SPCM JA	SCM
Army	449,746	17,993	641	28:1	438	118	47	38
Navy	332,671	DNR	173	n/a	62	87	9	15
Air Force	320,947	3909	331	12:1	169	101	12	49
Marines	172,300	5066	229	22:1	75	95	15	44
USCG	DNR	DNR	9	n/a	5	2	1	1

The Navy did not report NJP numbers in 2024. If their numbers were the same as in 2023, 6231, they would have had a ratio of 36:1 NJP to courts-martial. 

Overall, assuming that the Navy's numbers stayed the same, and not counting the U.S. Coast Guard, the services had 33,199 NJPs and 1374 courts-martial in 2024. 

That is a ratio of more than 24:1. NJPs continue to trend up while courts-martial continue their decline; the ratio was 20:1 just two years earlier in FY 2022. 

By the numbers

Things continue to hum here in the glass-enclosed newsroom high above Global Military Justice Reform Plaza. We've run the numbers:

Posts, 7802

Comments, 1123

Views, 3,114,326

Contributors, 25

Town Halls, 26

Keep in touch; tell your friends; post if you are a contributor and comment whether you are or aren't; send ideas.

High Commissioner's statement on Bangladesh disappearances trials

Following is text of a statement from the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights:

UN Human Rights Chief Volker Türk said today the initiation of proceedings against those accused of carrying out enforced disappearances and torture under the previous government in Bangladesh was an important step towards accountability.

“This marks the first time that formal charges have been brought for enforced disappearances in the country. It is a significant moment for victims and their families,” High Commissioner Türk said.

Last week, the country’s International Crimes Tribunal submitted formal charges of crimes against humanity in two cases related to enforced disappearances and torture alleged to have occurred at the Task Force for Interrogation Cell and the Joint Interrogation Cell, respectively. The Tribunal also issued arrest warrants for mostly former, but also some serving, military officers, including a number of former Directors-General of the Directorate General of Forces Intelligence, as well as former officials of the Rapid Action Battalion.

On Saturday, Bangladesh’s army announced that it had detained over a dozen of its officers accused of serious crimes committed under the previous administration. It is crucial that the army promptly produces these detained officers to a competent civilian court, for fair and transparent criminal proceedings.

“I urge full respect for the most scrupulous standards of due process and fair trial, as guaranteed in international law. The protection of victims and witnesses in these sensitive and significant cases must be ensured,” the High Commissioner said.

One of the key recommendations of the UN Human Rights Office’s Fact-Finding Report into last year’s deadly student-led protests was that those responsible for serious violations of human rights, some of which may also constitute international crimes, must be held to account in accordance with international standards.

The crime of enforced disappearances is now formally recognised in Bangladesh for the first time following ratification in August 2024 of the Convention on Enforced Disappearances and an amendment to the International Crimes Tribunal Act.

The High Commissioner also urges the authorities to prioritise the handling of the large number of other pending cases – with some dating back to the previous administration and others since then. It is crucial to ensure due process and fair resolution in each case, and to release promptly anyone who has been arbitrarily detained.

This includes survivors of enforced disappearances and others facing unfounded charges, including journalists and those perceived to be supporters of the former regime. Many of them continue to face criminal charges, including under the draconian Anti-Terrorism Act.

The High Commissioner has also urged the authorities not to pursue the death penalty in any of the cases before its courts, irrespective of the seriousness of the charges.

“Beyond ensuring individual accountability, the best way forward for Bangladesh is a comprehensive process of truth-telling, reparation, healing and justice. Such a process must address the legacy of serious human rights violations and ensure that these abuses can never happen again. I also call on the interim Government to deal with ongoing concerns promptly in line with international law,” Türk said.

To the extent that some of the accused are active dutry military personnel, the only reason for not referring their cases to the military courts must be a lack of confidence in those courts.

SECDEF v. JAGs -- a disturbing panorama

CNN's Natasha Bertrand reports here on the administration's dim view of JAGs and their role. Excerpt:

“[Pete] Hegseth’s rhetoric and policies are perceived as a bit unhinged and counterproductive, but the way forward is just to eat it and put your head down and act in accordance with his new policies,” said one current Army JAG. “No JAG is trying to rock the boat or get noticed.”

Instructional error in a he-said/she-said case

The Court Martial Appeal Court of Canada's decision in Houde v. H.M. The King, 2025 CMAC 2 (Guy Cournoyer, J.A.), finds instructional error where the military judge told the members that the complainant's credibility would be determinative. Excerpt:

Main issue: [the complainant’s] credibility

Introduction

1. In my view, the main issue you will have to determine during your deliberations relates to the credibility you will give to the testimony of the prosecution’s only witness, the [complainant]. If you believe the witness’s testimony, it should not be very difficult for you to answer the questions I will list later on concerning the essential elements of the offences.

***

After considering the general principles that were previously explained—the presumption of innocence, the burden of proof, the assessment of the evidence, the application of reasonable doubt to the credibility issue—and after considering the accused’s testimony in light of the analytical framework described, you will be able to arrive at a finding on the credibility of the [complainant’s] testimony and on the facts she has related.

[39] These instructions are highly problematic. They direct the panel’s attention to only one issue: the complainant’s credibility. As a result, these instructions explain to the panel that if it believes the complainant, the appellant must inevitably be found guilty because the panel [translation] “will not find it very difficult” to answer questions [translation] “concerning the essential elements of the offence.”

[40] It should be recalled that although a complainant’s credibility is important, it is not the main issue during a criminal trial. The issue at the end of a trial where contradictory versions were presented is not “credibility, but reasonable doubt”: R. v. Sheppard, 2002 SCC 26, [2002] 1 S.C.R. 869 at para. 65; R. v. S.B., 2023 ONCA 784 at para. 59; Wilson v. R., 2013 NBCA 38 at para. 36, A.1; R. v. C., 2004 NSCA 135 at para. 19; R. v. Mah, 2002 NSCA 99 at para. 41; R. v. P. N., 2013 NLCA 16 at para. 15.

Restoring military courts in Ukraine?

Should Ukraine restore its military courts? That is among the timely questions posed in an excellent new article: Olena Ovcharenko, Anatoliy Kozachenko, Roman Kabalskyi & Oleksandr Savchuk, Judiciary in Ukraine and Challenges of Wartime:The Protection of Human Rights in Extraordinary Conditions and Prospects of Restoring Military Courts, 2025 Isr. L. Rev. 1. Abstract:

The purpose of this study is to discuss possible solutions to stated problems and to reflect on the prospects for the resumption of military justice in Ukraine. The research formulates solutions for overcoming the negative consequences for the judiciary of the armed aggression by Russia against Ukraine. With regard to the limited institutional and human resources of international tribunals such as the International Criminal Court, the main burden of the investigation and trial of cases arising from military legal relations will be placed on the Ukrainian judicial system. International tribunals play a more global role, which is imposing responsibility on the organisers of armed aggression against Ukraine and placing sanctions on the military and political leaders of the aggressor country. For the judiciary of Ukraine, the best way to resolve this significant problem is to restore the system of military courts, which were voluntarily liquidated in 2010. The restoration of military courts will make it possible to unload pressure from the system of courts of general jurisdiction, to ensure prompt resolution of hundreds of thousands of cases of compensation for damage caused to citizens and businesses as a result of the hostilities, as well as the just trial of criminal proceedings for military and war crimes.

Seeking balance.

Sumaila Ogbaje, Buratai seeks balance between military discipline, constitutional rights. New Diary, 9 October 2025.

Former Chief of Army Staff (COAS), retired Lt.-Gen. Tukur Buratai, has called for a careful balance between the demands of military discipline and the constitutional rights of personnel under Nigeria’s evolving democratic system. 

Buratai made the call in Abuja at the public presentation of the book “Annotation of Cases on Court Martial,” co-authored by Maj.-Gen. Mahmoo Wambai and Mr Ali Omachi (Esq) on Thursday.

He said Nigeria’s court-martial system, rooted in British military tradition, had undergone a profound transformation over the decades, mirroring the nation’s political and legal evolution.

“The imperative for military discipline must now be balanced with the constitutional rights of personnel and the scrutiny of civilian appellate courts,” he said.

Buratai highlighted landmark judgments such as Eweka v. Nigerian Army and Gideon Uweri v. Nigerian Army as milestones that reinforced fair hearing and delineated court-martial jurisdiction within democratic norms.

According to him, these rulings reflect the growing tension and harmony between the rule of law and the demands of command and control in a professional force.

“A fair and just military justice system is the bedrock of disciplined armed forces and a stable democracy.

“For the military, court martials remain indispensable for enforcing conduct and professionalism; for democracy, they demonstrate that the Armed Forces are firmly under the rule of law,” he said.

Military Justice System Modernization Bill proposed in Canada

From the Department of National Defence's announcement:

. . . The Military Justice System Modernization Act addresses key recommendations made by former Supreme Court Justices Louise Arbour and Morris J. Fish. This legislative proposal continues the constant evolution and modernization of the Military Justice System to meet the Canadian Armed Forces (CAF) needs to maintain discipline, efficiency and morale.

The proposed legislation is grouped into four key areas:

1.  The removal of the CAF’s investigative and prosecutorial jurisdiction over Criminal Code sexual offences committed in Canada.

This proposed change addresses Recommendation 5 of the Honourable Louise Arbour’s Report of the Independent External Comprehensive Review of the Department of National Defence and the Canadian Armed Forces (IECR), which states that, “Criminal Code sexual offences should be removed from the jurisdiction of the CAF. They should be prosecuted exclusively in civilian criminal courts in all cases. Where the offence takes place in Canada, it should be investigated by civilian police forces at the earliest opportunity.”

The proposed legislation provides exclusive jurisdiction to civilian authorities to investigate and prosecute sexual offences in Canada.

Recommendation #5 is the only recommendation from IECR exclusively implemented through legislation. Progress to implement all 48 IECR recommendations is either complete or underway with oversight provided by the External Monitor, Madame Jocelyne Therrien, who has provided regular progress reports.

2.  This proposed legislation also addresses eight recommendations (2, 7, 8, 10, 13, 14, 15, 16) from the Report of the Third Independent Review Authority to the Minister of National Defence of the National Defence Act by former Supreme Court Justice Morris J. Fish. These amendments seek to, among other things:

Revise the appointment process of the Canadian Forces Provost Marshal, to be retitled the Provost Marshal General, the Director of Military Prosecutions and the Director of Defence Counsel Services;

Broaden the eligibility criteria for military judge appointments to include non-commissioned members;

Affirm the Judge Advocate General’s commitment to the respect for the independence of military justice authorities in the exercise of its superintendence of the administration of military justice;

Expand the class of persons who may make an interference complaint and provide that a member of the military police or person performing policing duties or functions under the Canadian Forces Provost Marshal’s supervision must make such a complaint in certain circumstances; and

Rename the title of the Canadian Forces Provost Marshal to the Provost Marshal General to align with the titles of other senior designations in the CAF, such as the Surgeon General, the Chaplain General, and the Judge Advocate General.

These legislative amendments continue the modernization of the military justice system to allow it to remain effective, accountable, and aligned with the operational needs of the CAF.

3.  The proposed amendments also seek to exclude military judges from the summary hearing system, and expand access to Victim Liaison Officers, under the Declaration of Victims Rights, to individuals acting on behalf of a victim

4.  Amendments to the National Defence Act are also proposed to align provisions related to sex offender information and publication bans with the amendments made to the Criminal Code in An Act to amend the Criminal Code, the Sex Offender Information Registration Act and the International Transfer of Offenders Act. These proposed changes are essential to ensure the military justice system remains constitutional and aligned with the Criminal Code and the civilian criminal justice system.

The New York Times reports on "America's Vigilantes"

The New York Times Magazine has posted a string of investigative articles under the broad heading "America's Vigilantes." You can find it here. One article is titled Five Takeaways About the Culture of Lawlessness in the U.S. Special Forces.

Chilean Supreme Court reacts to bill to restrict military court jurisdiction

Chile's Supreme Court of Justice has issued a report on pending legislation that would remove from military court jurisdiction offenses relating to drug trafficking and organized crime. Those offenses will be heard in the civilian courts. The court's only apparent concern, judging by this news account, was that a different approach might be warranted in time of war.

The Caribbean boat strikes: criminal exposure for military personnel?

Daniel Maurer writes on Just Security: US Servicemembers’ Exposure to Criminal Liability for Lethal Strikes on Narcoterrorists. Excerpt:

I see only one viable route to a prosecution: President [Donald J.] Trump fails to grant the servicemembers pardons while still in office and a future administration pursues the cases (with no statute of limitations for murder).

* * *

Trump’s order to the military to kill alleged narcoterrorists on boats in international waters without any legitimate legal ground was morally abhorrent.  But it also exposes the servicemembers participating in these attacks to a range of criminal punishments under two distinct legal regimes: federal criminal law (under both 18 U.S.C. § 1111 and the war crimes statute); and the UCMJ (murder and other military offenses like “service-discrediting conduct” and “dereliction of duty”). However, the disinclination of federal prosecutors to hold servicemembers accountable for following an order by the President and for which Trump himself is immune makes the prospect of criminal accountability highly improbable. But that should not cloud this simple truth: the President and Defense Secretary issued an illegal order; that order propagated down the chain-of-command; plans were formulated, mission orders were issued, and the targets were destroyed obediently following that original unlawful command. In this way, the commander-in-chief himself has prejudiced good order and discipline within the armed forces, placing U.S. servicemembers in the position of having to contemplate whether they’d escape justice.

Pakistan's Military Courts Case

After some months' delay, the Supreme Court of Pakistan has finally released the opinions of the 5-justice majority in The Military Courts Case. The opinion of the court by the Senior Judge, Justice Amin-ud-Din Khan, can be found here. The concurring opinion of Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar can be found here. The earlier-released dissent by Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail for himself and Justice Naeem Akhter Afghan can be found here. 

The court's bottom line is to uphold the trial of civilians by court-martial, albeit with the hope that the government will enact legislation within 45 days affording accused persons the right to appellate review in the High Court. So far as we can tell, no such legislation has been enacted even though the 45-day deadline has long since expired.

Article 88 and retirees

George W. Croner has written a timely Just Security piece, Could Trump Use the Uniform Code of Military Justice to Stifle Protected Speech of Military Personnel? One key point requires a little more information. Not all military retirees are subject to the UCMJ -- only those who are covered by Art. 2(a)(4)-(6), UCMJ:

(4) Retired members of a regular component of the armed forces who are entitled to pay.

(5) Retired members of a reserve component, or retired members of the Space Force who qualified for a non-regular retirement and are receiving retired pay, who are receiving hospitalization from an armed force.

(6) Members of the Fleet Reserve and Fleet Marine Corps Reserve.

Free speech in uniform?

Politico has this piece about the Pentagon's crackdown on hostile social media commentary about murdered Turning Point head Charlie Kirk. Watch this space for major First Amendment issues. Precedent from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces may be an obstacle to disciplinary action under the Uniform Code of Military Justice.

The Giulia Schiff case -- prosecution seeks jail time

After years of delay, Italian civilian prosecutors have asked for jail sentences in the Giulia Schiff hazing case, after military proceedings against the eight air force accuseds were dismissed. Details in this report from NSM. 

Hazing is no laughing matter, yet it keeps happening. BTW, Ms. Schiff is also seeking damages as a civil party to the criminal case.

Prosecuting military personnel in Zambia

Joseph Chilobwa, Limitations of the Law Governing the Military Compared to the Civilian Justice System in Zambia. Africa Research University (ARU), Keystone University of Africa, Lusaka, Zambia, September 2025.

The Security Wings of Zambia, which happen to have concurrent jurisdiction with the Defence Force, prefer to prosecute cases before them involving members of the Defence Force in the civil courts instead of referring the cases to the military courts. This article reports on the inadequacies in the law regulating the Defence Force, which may be causing this problem, through a case study of the Lusaka urban district Defence and Security Wings, namely the Zambia Army, Zambia Air Force, Zambia National Service, Zambia Police Service, Anti-Corruption Commission and Drug Enforcement Commission. The study findings showed that the Defence Act Chapter 106 of the Laws of Zambia has limitations in that it does not expressly cover the prosecution of military personnel of the rank of Colonel and above. Further, prosecution of serious offences such as murder is difficult because of the lack of legal qualification of both the judge advocate and members of the court. However, limitations of the Military Justice System are not the cause of Civil Security Institutions opting to prosecute members of the Defence Force in Civil Courts; rather, most members of them do not possess much knowledge about military law, and since they have jurisdiction over military officers, they just use their own laws. Key recommendations are that there is a need to amend the Act in order to provide for the prosecution of all ranks by permanent and competent military courts and the need for a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) between Defence and Security Institutions on the transfer of cases among the Institutions. This will help to preserve the integrity and secrecy of the Defence Force of Zambia and improve relations with Civil Security Institutions.