COMMAND INFLUENCE IN THE ADMINISTRATION OF MILITARY JUSTICE IN NIGERIA: AN AFFRONT TO THE PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE

Abstract

The concept of natural justice is ageless, having been in existence from time immemorial. Its principles are meant to guide civil and criminal adjudication of matters. The cardinal principle of natural justice is a fundamental right recognized both in national and international statutes .The Nigerian military justice system (the court martial) is not excluded from upholding this cardinal law of nature; but what obtains in Nigeria is contrary to global best practice. We observed that the conveners of the Court Martial that tries accused defiant military officers are also military officers in active service. At the end of judicial proceedings and pronouncement of sentence, the confirming authorities of the sentence are also military officers. Although the argument is that the convening and confirming authority lies on separate heads; notwithstanding this argument, the fact remains that both the convening and confirming authority are still loyal and pay obeisance to the same person (the Nigerian Military) and there is every possibility for elements of bias to be found in the judicial processes therein. This research brings to the fore some safeguards needed to have a valid and acceptable mode of appointment of the members of Court Martial in the Nigerian Military Judicial System. It also critically examines the compliance of the country’s court martial with principles of fair hearing (which includes right to an independent and impartial tribunal) as stipulated in the Nigerian Constitution and other international human rights instruments. We adopted the analytical and comparative methodology. Source materials were garnered from textbooks, journals, law reports, United Nations documents, statutes, internet sources and other related literature on the subject. From the findings, this paper strongly argues that the Nigerian Military Justice system (court martial) cannot be said to be independent and impartial since they do not guarantee the essential objective conditions for ensuring the independence and impartiality of a tribunal. They are institutionally not independent, their members and the judge advocates do not have adequate tenure and financial security to guarantee their independence and impartiality. We however recommended the necessary redress to cure the shortcomings.