The second accused person in the alleged mutiny and coup plot trial, Col. Mohammed Ma’aji, has challenged the jurisdiction of the Defence Headquarters (DHQ) Garrison General Court Martial sitting in Asokoro, Abuja, to hear the case.
PrimeTimes Nigeria reports that Ma’aji is standing trial alongside 35 others on charges bordering on alleged mutiny and plot to overthrow the government of President Bola Tinubu.
In a preliminary objection filed before the court martial in charge number DHQ/GAR/ABJ/49/ADM, Ma’aji urged the tribunal to strike out the charges against him, arguing that it lacked jurisdiction to entertain the matter.
The objection was brought pursuant to Rules 36(1) and 37(1) of the Rules of Procedure Army 1972.
Ma’aji contended that the charges were fundamentally defective and incompetent in law.
“Take notice that the 2nd accused hereby objects to the jurisdiction of the General Court Martial to entertain Counts One to Nine of the charges preferred against the 2nd Accused in Charge No: DHQ/GAR/ABJ/49/ADM, namely ARMED FORCES OF NIGERIA V. BRIG. GEN. M. A. SADIQ (N/10321) & 35 ORS and hereby prays the General Court Martial for the following reliefs:
“An Order striking out and/or dismissing the charges against the 2nd Accused in Charge No: DHQ/GAR/ABJ/49/ADM for lack of jurisdiction. An order declining jurisdiction to entertain the charge as constituted.
“And for such further order(s) as the Honourable General Court Martial may deem fit to make in the circumstances.”
The accused also argued that the complainant, listed as the Armed Forces of Nigeria, lacked the legal capacity to institute criminal proceedings.
According to him, the “Armed Forces of Nigeria” is not a juristic person recognised by law to prosecute criminal charges.
“The complainant (Armed Force of Nigeria) is not a juristic person and thereby lacks the requisite competence to initiate and prosecute the criminal proceedings in Charge No: DHQ/GAR/ABJ/49/ADM,” Ma’aji argued.
He maintained that since the complainant allegedly lacked legal personality, the General Court Martial was equally deprived of jurisdiction to hear the case.
His lawyers cited several Supreme Court and Court of Appeal authorities, including Green v. Green, Fawehinmi v. NBA and Mothercat Nig Ltd v. Registered Trustees of the Full Gospel Assembly Nig, arguing that only natural persons or entities recognised by law could sue or be sued.
The written address in support of the objection stated, “The name ‘Armed Forces of Nigeria’ described as ‘complainant’ in Charge No: DHQ/GAR/ABJ/49/ADM is unknown to law and destitute of any legal capacity to exercise Prosecutorial powers in respect of the charges preferred against the 2nd Accused.”
Mutiny Charge Challenged
Ma’aji also challenged the competence of counts one to nine, which allegedly accused him of inciting other officers to join a plot to overthrow Tinubu’s government.
He argued that the allegations did not fall within the offence of mutiny as contemplated under Section 52(1)(b) of the Armed Forces Act, 2004.
According to him, the particulars of the charge “disclose offences against the Sovereign State otherwise known as the Federal Republic of Nigeria and constitutional order rather than offences relating to military or service discipline or command structure.”
He further contended that the phrase “plot to overthrow the government of the Federal Republic of Nigeria” could not be equated with “lawful authority in the Federation” under Section 52(3) of the Armed Forces Act.
“It is submitted that the Federal Republic of Nigeria does not fall within the phrase ‘a lawful authority in the Federation’ as used in Section 52(3) of the Armed Forces Act, Laws of Federation, 2004,” he argued.
Relying on constitutional provisions and judicial precedents, Ma’aji said the court-martial, being a tribunal of limited jurisdiction, could not extend its powers beyond what was expressly granted by statute.
He also cited the Supreme Court’s decision in Nigerian Navy v. Lambert, insisting that ambiguity in penal legislation must be resolved in favour of an accused person.
“It is settled law that penal statutes are to be construed strictly to the benefit of the accused person and that where there is a reasonable construction that avoids the penalty in any particular case, the court must adopt that construction,” the objection stated.
The defence further argued that for mutiny or incitement to mutiny to be established, there must be allegations of concerted insubordination, defiance of military authority, refusal of lawful command or organised military rebellion against superior military command.
According to Ma’aji, the prosecution failed to disclose those essential ingredients.
He urged the General Court Martial to uphold the objection and dismiss the charges against him.