Military justice update from Singapore

This revealing insight on military justice in Singapore was just published by the Military Justice Project, an initiative by the National University of Singapore (NUS) law faculty's criminal justice club.

The Singapore Armed Forces Act arose from exigency as the young nation resisted foreign intervention, and reflects a strong skepticism of outside meddling. On the other hand, the world tends to look towards Singapore as a model example in areas from diplomacy to economics, so trends in Singapore are worth watching. 

Congratulations to NUS Law's Military Justice Project for keeping us informed. Congratulations too to NUS Law's first-place winning team in the 2019 Nuremberg Moot Court Competition in international criminal law (ICL). The growing field of ICL is closely connected to military justice.  

A word of thanks

The editor would like to thank the Global Military Justice Reform contributors for helping make the blog the go-to site for information and commentary on this critical topic. The newsworthy developments keep coming, often very unpredictably, and at times in languages that neither the editor nor "Google translate" can manage.

So, from the glass-enclosed newsroom high above Global Military Justice Reform Plaza, thank you, thank you, thank you.

Is the Khadr logjam breaking?

Under pressure from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, the Court of Military Commission Review is apparently moving forward with adjudication of Omar Khadr's appeal of his 2010 military commission conviction. He's in Canada pursuant to a deal. Does that mean he's a fugitive whose appeal can be put on hold indefinitely? Stay tuned?

The Globe and Mail has the story here.

AFT decision overturned by Supreme Court of India

The Supreme Court of India on Wednesday overturned a decision of the Armed Forces Tribunal. At issue in Union of India v. Yadav, Civ. App. No. 7603 of 2019 (India Sept. 25, 2019), was whether the AFT erred in reducing the gravity of a censure issued to an Army lieutenant colonel as a result of contact with a foreign national. The officer had been punished by proceedings before a Staff Court of Inquiry, rather than a court-martial, and awarded a "Severe Displeasure (Recordable)." He contended, among other things, that the punishment was excessive and not commensurate with the facts. The AFT set aside the action and remanded for reconsideration of the sanction -- provided that "Severe Displeasure (Recordable)" was off the table. That would have permitted two sanctions: Severe Displeasure (Non-Recordable) or simple Displeasure. The government appealed.

From the Supreme Court's judgment:

22. It is no more res integra that the Tribunal is competent and empowered to interfere with the punishment awarded by the appropriate authority in any departmental action, on the ground that the same is excessive or disproportionate to the misconduct proved against the delinquent officer. However, exercise of that power is circumscribed. It can be invoked only in exceptional and rare cases, when the punishment awarded by the disciplinary authority shocks the conscience of the Tribunal or is so unreasonable that no reasonable person would have taken such an action. The Tribunal, ordinarily, is not expected to examine the quantum and nature of punishment awarded by the disciplinary authority as a court of appeal and substitute its own view and findings by replacing the subjective satisfaction arrived at by the competent authority in the backdrop of the evidence on record.

23. Indeed, it is open to the Tribunal to direct the disciplinary authority to reconsider the penalty imposed by it; and in exceptional and rare cases, may itself impose appropriate punishment to shorten the litigation by recording cogent reasons therefor. The reported decisions pressed into service by the appellants have consistently taken this view. In the present case, the Tribunal has adopted the former option, of relegating the respondent before the competent authority for reconsideration of the punishment but, at the same time, hedged by an observation that awarding of censure in the facts of the present case was inevitable.

The court examined and rejected the reasons the AFT gave for overturning the disciplinary authority's action. "[J]ust because the competent authority chose to dispense with the disciplinary action of [a] Court Martial qua the respondent, does not make the misconduct and misdemeanour of the respondent any less serious much less to be of a minor nature as assumed by the Tribunal." ¶ 26, at p. 25.`

The case took a long time:

Misconduct, 2009-11
Staff Court of Inquiry, 2013
Competent Authority decision on Staff Court of Inquiry, May 10, 2013
Reprimand, Oct. 5, 2013
Competent Authority decision on officer's statutory complaint, Feb. 26, 2014
Application to AFT, 2014
AFT decsion, July 12, 2016
Civil Appeal filed, 2017
Supreme Court decision, Sept. 25, 2019

Kampala High Court hears jurisdictional challenge

The Civil Division of the High Court of Uganda at Kampala is hearing a challenge to the general court-martial's jurisdiction over civilians who possess firearms, according to this New Vision account. Excerpt:

[Sam] Buchanan asserts that GCM, like other military courts, is an organ of the army and a Quasi-judicial body with limited jurisdiction intended to ensure operational efficiency and discipline of officers and militants of UPDF but not vested with jurisdiction to try criminal cases.

Global Military Justice Reform knows of no other country that predicates court-martial jurisdiction over civilians on weapon-possession. The African Charter of Human and Peoples' Rights has been interpreted to exclude all military court jurisdiction over civilians. Human rights jurisprudence in general strongly disfavors such jurisdiction.