Speaking of trying civilians in military courts . . .

. . .  Consider this report about secret military trials and executions in eastern Libya. Excerpt:

Amnesty said military courts in eastern Libya had repeatedly violated defendants' rights to a fair trial, including access to lawyers, sufficient time to prepare a defence, the right to remain silent and the right to a public hearing before an independent and impartial court.

The organisation added that military prosecutors and judges in the east are not independent because they are affiliated with the LAAF or allied armed groups.

In 2017, Libya’s eastern-based House of Representatives passed a law giving military courts jurisdiction over civilians accused of terrorism and crimes committed in “military areas”. The law was later declared unconstitutional by Libya’s Constitutional Chamber. 

Executions have resumed as UN-led efforts to unify Libya’s rival institutions and prepare the country for national elections continue.

Amnesty said the eastern authorities should halt all executions and conduct independent and impartial investigations into allegations of torture and other ill-treatment.

The executions come as the country remains split between rival administrations, with the internationally recognised Government of National Unity controlling the west and an administration allied with Haftar’s forces controlling the east and much of the south.

The country's courts have been engaging in a prolonged tug of war, as this report indicates. 

Afghanistan Supreme Court denies civilians are being tried in military courts

The court responded to charges in a recent UNAMA report. Details here. Excerpt:

Last week, UNAMA, in a 28-page report, expressed concern over what it described as continuing gaps in transparency and accountability within the security institutions.

In the report, UNAMA also raised concerns about the jurisdiction of military courts to try civilians, stressing that under international human rights standards, civilians should ordinarily be tried before independent civilian courts.

Khalil Ahmad Nadem, a legal expert, said: “This should also be observed in Afghanistan because if civilians are tried in military courts, justice may not be ensured.”

Fazl Rahman Orya, a political analyst, said: “Military courts are established to try military personnel. That is what distinguishes them from ordinary courts. For this reason, I do not think civilians have been tried in such courts.”

The UNAMA report can be found here. 

Tragic plane crash in DRC

Two senior military justice officials, incuding the auditor general, were among the victims of a plane crash in the DRC. Details here.

Business as usual in Uganda

Despite a clear contrary ruling by the country's Supreme Court, Uganda continues to prosecute civilians by court-martial. Here is the Peoples' Defence Forces press release on the latest such cases.

New military court proposed for Fiji

The Fiji Times reports here about a Constitution Review Commission proposal that would create a military court that would be equivalent to the High Court and make other important changes in Fiji's military justice system.

Significantly, cases before the proposed Military Court would be heard by sitting High Court judges assigned on an ad hoc basis, rather than judges operating within the military command structure.

The Commission said this was intended to maintain the court’s independence from the military and ensure that constitutional protections under the Bill of Rights also apply to military personnel facing prosecution.

It has also recommended that Military Court hearings be open to the public under the same standards applying to civilian courts.

Duty to disobey unlawful orders -- a case from South Korea

What to do when an order is unlawful? A recent decision from South Korea addresses this timely question:

The court stated, “Colonel Yu was clearly aware that the superior’s order was illegal, and it appears he only brought a minimal number of personnel for a formal deployment,” adding, “It is not reasonable to evaluate that he followed an illegal order merely based on the fact that he deployed.” The court further stated, “Passive resistance is also a way to confront illegal orders.” The court added, “Realistically, it is difficult to expect all soldiers to risk danger and firmly refuse orders,” and “They can choose not to properly cooperate by delaying or scaling down the execution of orders.”

Steve Vladeck on "Reining in Military Jurisdiction"

On Prof. Steve Vladeck's One First Supreme Court blog, an overview of issues around the scope of military court jurisdiction can be found here.

Did they know, and does it matter? : US Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces to decide on permissive inference of a positive marijuana drug test

 

The Marijuana Herald reported that the United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces is set to hear the review of an Air Force member to determine whether a positive marijuana drug test of a service member is sufficient to prove that the member knowingly consumed marijuana.

The two questions of law to be considered by the court are as follows:

I. Whether the permissive inference is unconstitutional for marijuana cases, both facially and as applied to this case. 

II. Whether Appellant's conviction for marijuana use is legally insufficient.

Read more here. 

Suicide bombing case from Nigeria

The Supreme Court of Nigeria has handed down an interesting unanimous decision on dereliction of duty arising out of a suicide bombing that occurred in 2012. Passing over the question why it took 14 years for the matter to be investigated and adjudicated, the decision reveals some serious weakness. The government's evidence consisted of hearsay testimony by the investigting officer and out-of-court admissions by the accused. There were three issues, the first two of which were, in the Editor's opinion, frivolous and properly rejected. The third went to whether the government had proven the accused's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Held, per Adamo Jauro, J.S.C., "[t]he evidence established that the respondent had completed his sentry duty and was taking his breakfast when the attack occurred. There is no evidence of any duty that the respondent neglected to perform or negligently performed after 12 noon on 7th February, 2012." The case is Nigerian Army v. Friday, No SC/CR/987/2017 (Nigeria Sup. Ct. July 10, 2026).

Reform proposal in Spain

The Spanish State Attorney General's Office is proposing a project for the reform of military justice. Details can be found here. (Google Translate will help.)

The overall thrust seems to be to modernize Spanish military justice and bring it into closer alignment with civilian criminal procedure.

Global Military Justice Reform hopes to follow this matter closely. Readers are invited to comment as the project unfolds. (No anonymous comments, please.)

For your comparative military justice bookshelf

This just in from a friend in New Delhi.

There's a comprehensive new volume titled Supreme Court on Military Law: Leading Judgments That Shape the Rights, Duties and Honour of the Armed Forces. The treatise has been co-authored by two veterans of the Judge Advocate General’s Department (Indian Army): Col Manmohan Jaswal (Retd), former Deputy Judge-Advocate General (Army), and Col Manmohan Sood (Retd), former Deputy Judge-Advocate General (Army) and former Registrar of the Armed Forces Tribunal (Chandigarh Bench).

"Following more than six months of rigorous compilation, the authors have systematically mapped landmark judgments of the Supreme Court of India directly to the relevant statutory provisions of the Army Act, 1950, and the Army Rules. The work meticulously covers disciplinary proceedings, court-martial procedures, constitutional guarantees, command responsibility, service disputes, and pensionary jurisprudence.

While rooted in Indian military jurisprudence, the volume serves as an invaluable reference tool for comparative military law practitioners, scholars, and judicial officers worldwide. In particular, it illustrates how the Apex Court of the world’s largest democracy harmonizes operational discipline and command authority with constitutional guarantees of due process and fairness—a balance that resonates across common-law jurisdictions and armed forces globally."

The book is available from Shandilya Publications in New Delhi.

Hearty congratulations to the authors!