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.

Social media post lands Russian civilian in jail following military court trial

Why was this case tried in a Russian naval court?

The Northern Fleet Military Court has sentenced a 46-year-old resident of Arkhangelsk, a city in north-western Russia, to a fine of 500,000 roubles (approximately US$5,700) under the article on public justification of terrorism on the internet (Part 2, Article 205.2 of the Criminal Code). According to investigators, the man posted comments in a messenger in support of the activities of Ukrainian nationalist organisations.

Should Türkiye reintroduce military courts?

Retired Brigadier General Erdoğan Baykal thinks so. He writes:

The issue of the re-establishment of the military judiciary and military courts is in danger of being forgotten by the public. The fact that it is not being discussed or featured on the agenda should not be taken to mean that this need has disappeared or has become a matter of course. This issue is of the utmost critical importance for the discipline and success of the heroic Turkish Armed Forces (TSK) whilst carrying out their duties under wartime conditions. The re-establishment of the military justice system and military courts must be debated in the public sphere and kept on the agenda.

Military justice requires specialisation. What is important is the establishment of a system capable of fulfilling this function. The judges or prosecutors serving within this system may be in civilian or military uniform. The institutions or mechanisms (civilian or military) to which this system would be answerable are open to discussion. ‘However, provided that they are limited solely to military personnel and military offences, there is an absolute need for specialised first-instance military courts in this regard.’

Taking into account the principle of the unity and oneness of the judiciary, there may be no need for a second-tier military judiciary, that is, a separate High Military Court. In line with the need for specialisation, the function of reviewing military judicial decisions could be carried out by units established within the (civilian) Court of Cassation and the Council of State.

Major ruling in Indonesia

Indonesia's Constitutional Court has handed down a landmark decision invalidating parts of the military justice system and giving the government an opportunity to pass remedial legislation. Human Rights Monitor reports on the decision here. Excerpt:

On 15 October 2026, Indonesia’s Constitutional Court delivered Decision No. 260/PUU-XXIII/2025 on Law No. 31/1997 on the Military Judiciary. The Court declared the Act conditionally inconsistent with Article 24(1) and Article 28D(1) of the 1945 Constitution. Those provisions guarantee an independent judiciary and equality before the law. The case was brought by two petitioners, Mr Lenny Damanik and Mrs Eva Melina Br. Pasaribu, through judicial review of the Act.

The Act remains unconstitutional unless the House of Representatives (DPR) and the Government amend it within two years of the ruling, that is by October 2028. The amendments must clarify the distinction between military offences and general criminal offences, define which court has jurisdiction over cases involving personnel of the Indonesian National Armed Forces (TNI), and reform the military justice system as a whole.

The ruling is significant. Under the current Act, jurisdiction follows the status of the accused rather than the nature of the offence. Military personnel accused of an ordinary crime against a civilian, such as assault or murder, is tried by a military court, not a civilian one.

Kompas.com has this additional report. Excerpt:

According to Abdul Fickar, the MK's ruling reinforces the principle that TNI personnel accused of military crimes should be tried in military courts, while those charged with common crimes should be prosecuted in civilian courts. He noted that historically, both military-related crimes and general offenses committed by TNI personnel have been adjudicated in military courts. This situation, he argues, has drawn public attention, as general crimes committed by TNI personnel should be handled through the civilian judicial system. 

"Yes, it is indeed a momentum. Because up until now, whether it’s a military crime or a common crime like that of Andri Yunus and others, all have been tried in military courts. They should be tried in civilian courts," Abdul Fickar stated in an interview with Kompas.com on Friday (16/10/2026). 

Abdul Fickar explained that changing the judicial system requires an amendment to the Military Justice Law. The MK's ruling is seen as a catalyst to expedite the development of fairer regulations. “The Constitutional Court's decision also urges the Parliament to swiftly amend the Military Justice Law to ensure that it focuses solely on adjudicating military offenses committed by military personnel,” he said.

Where should this case be tried?

Gang rape investigation in Chile's Rapa Nui -- consider this report from T13. The accused are Chilean marines. Should they be in civilian or military pretrial confinement? Where should the case be tried? Stand by for a ruling from the Constitutional Court.

Not military justice, but . . .

The Hill has just posted a column by Major General (ret) Steven J. Lepper, LTC (ret) Dan Maurer, and the Editor, titled Plan B for Trump’s election intimidation: An iron fist in a velvet glove. Excerpt: "[I]f resistance fails and the president and his Office of Legal Counsel concoct legal and factual justifications for deploying troops to polling sites, military commanders and their judge advocates can mitigate the impacts of these actions by exercising good judgment."

Is live-streaming a military execution legal?

Prof. Dan Maurer examines rhe question here. Bottom line: probably not. He "concludes that there is a viable Eighth Amendment argument that these deviations from established rules and practices constitute 'cruel and unusual punishment.'”

What do you think? Comments are welcome (real names, please; no pseudonyms.)

Major Hasan's case

All eyes have been on Major Nidal Malik Hasan, the U.S. Army psychiatrist sentenced to death for multiple murders at Fort Hood. President Donald J. Trump has approved the death sentence and the Army has indicated that it intends to livestream video of the execution by firing squad. The New York Times has this report. 

Will Mr. Trump veto the livestreaming? Will Dr. Hasan seek habeas corpus? Stay tuned.

Australian DF Personnel Can Apply To Have Historical Homosexual Convictions Expunged

The Star Observer (AU) reports that current and former Australian Defense Force (ADF) personnel can now apply to have historical convictions for consensual same-sex activity extinguished from their service records, following changes to military discipline law.

Until 1992, consensual homosexual activity could be prosecuted as a service offence. Decades after those activities were decriminalised, affected personnel have continued to carry convictions on their official records.

Amendments to the Defense Force Discipline Act 1982 (Cth) now allow eligible convictions to be formally extinguished, meaning they are treated as though they never happened.

ROK JA fights city hall -- and wins

SBS News has this interesting tale of a South Korean judge advocate whose promotion was unfairly withheld. Excerpt:

A military judge advocate whose promotion was put on hold under the allegation of involvement in drafting the so-called Ministry of National Defense "suspicious document" surrounding the death of the late Corporal Chae Su-geun has won an appeal lawsuit.

The Seoul Administrative Court's Administrative Division 10 (Presiding Judge Jung Eun-young) recently ruled in favor of the plaintiff in a lawsuit filed by military judge advocate A against the Minister of National Defense, seeking to cancel the withholding of his promotion appointment.

* * *

A filed an administrative lawsuit, arguing, "Because the Minister of National Defense requested disciplinary deliberation for unjust purposes at the demand of lawmakers, the promotion withholding decision based on this is illegal."

The court sided with A, ruling that the Ministry's measure was illegal both procedurally and substantively.

The tribunal pointed out, "Before taking the measure, the defendant did not notify the plaintiff of the facts causing the measure, the details of the measure, and the legal basis, nor did the defendant provide an opportunity to submit opinions," adding, "It restricted the party's rights and interests without going through prior notification or opinion-hearing procedures."

It also noted that A's actions did not constitute grounds for major disciplinary action.

The tribunal judged, "The grounds for requesting disciplinary deliberation merely state that A agreed to use the material he drafted as an external briefing document, and that content alone is not enough to conclusively determine that the degree of wrongdoing was severe and intentional."

New legislation in Algeria

El Moudjahid reports:

Military Justice Code:

The Foundations of the Rule of Law Consolidated

The adoption on Thursday of the law establishing the Military Justice Code is part of a comprehensive revision designed to support the momentum of changes introduced by the 2020 Constitution, within the framework of reforms initiated by the President of the Republic, Supreme Commander of the Armed Forces, and Minister of National Defence, Abdelmadjid Tebboune.

Presenting the text to the members of the National People's Assembly (APN), the Minister of Justice explained that it aims to strengthen the foundations of the rule of law and address certain practical shortcomings revealed by military judicial activity in the field, while preserving the gains achieved, particularly following the 2018 revision and the adoption of the principles of a fair trial, two levels of jurisdiction, and the widespread use of information and communication technologies in military justice.

The new code defines military justice as a specialized criminal justice system, administered by military courts under the supervision of the Supreme Court, in accordance with the principles of legality, a fair trial, and respect for human dignity and rights. It organizes military jurisdictions into military courts of first instance and military courts of appeal at the level of each military region, elevates to the rank of court president, at least, the magistrate seconded from the Ministry of Justice to preside over the military court of appeal, and addresses the practical difficulties related to replacing military magistrates to complete the composition of the criminal court. The text also creates the positions of First Deputy Military Prosecutor General and First Deputy Military Prosecutor of the Republic, granting the Military Prosecutor General hierarchical authority over all personnel under the Ministry of National Defense operating within the structures of the military justice system.