ANALYSIS: Nigeria’s Military Court Martial, Coups and Consequences
By Kabir Abdulsalam,
Nigeria’s military justice system has been profoundly shaped by the country’s long and turbulent history of coups and attempted coups. From independence through the late 20th century, courts martial and special military tribunals became central instruments for enforcing discipline and preserving command authority within the armed forces.
The recent court martial of 16 military personnel by Defence Headquarters (DHQ) fits squarely within this long-established framework. The officers were tried over offences bordering on mutiny and serious acts of indiscipline following their arrest in October 2025 for breaches of service regulations.
The Director of Defence Information, Major General Samaila Uba, confirmed that investigations were conducted in line with established military procedures and that the findings had been forwarded to the appropriate superior authority for necessary action. DHQ further stated that the trials were conducted strictly in accordance with the provisions of the Armed Forces Act, underscoring the military’s position that internal discipline remains non-negotiable, particularly in matters touching on loyalty to constituted authority.
While details of the proceedings were not fully disclosed for security reasons, the decision to subject the accused personnel to court martial rather than administrative sanctions reflects the gravity with which such offences are treated. Within military doctrine, acts suggesting organised disobedience or political subversion are viewed not merely as individual misconduct but as threats to unit cohesion, command integrity and democratic stability.
One persistent misconception about military justice in Nigeria is the belief that court martial decisions are final and immune from civilian judicial review. Nigerian law provides otherwise.
What exactly is a court martial? Why does the military try its own personnel outside the regular civilian courts? And how has Nigeria’s long history of coups, counter-coups and mutinies shaped the rigidity of military justice?
A court martial is a judicial mechanism established under military law to try serving personnel accused of breaches of military discipline, operational codes or criminal conduct as defined under the Armed Forces Act (AFA). Unlike civilian courts, which derive jurisdiction from the Constitution and common law, courts martial are specialised tribunals designed to preserve order, obedience and command integrity within the armed forces.
Globally, militaries operate separate justice systems because the profession of arms depends on instant obedience, hierarchy and trust, especially under combat conditions. Offences such as mutiny, desertion, insubordination or conspiracy to overthrow constituted authority strike at the heart of military cohesion. Subjecting such matters to the slower and more public civilian judicial process is widely considered incompatible with operational effectiveness and national security.
In Nigeria, the court martial system is firmly rooted in the Armed Forces Act, Cap A20, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, which governs offences, procedures, punishments and appeal rights for military personnel.
According to DHQ, the offences for which the 16 personnel were tried related to mutiny, insubordination and conspiracy capable of undermining national security and constitutional order. Such allegations rank among the gravest under military law. Given Nigeria’s history of six successful coups and several failed attempts between 1966 and 1993, even perceived efforts to destabilise a civilian government attract maximum institutional response.
Courts martial in Nigeria are not monolithic. There are distinct categories with defined powers. A General Court Martial (GCM) is the highest form of military tribunal. It is convened by the Chief of Defence Staff, Service Chiefs or General Officers Commanding and typically consists of a president usually a senior officer and not fewer than five members. A GCM can try all offences under the Armed Forces Act, including those carrying the death penalty.
A Special Court Martial (SCM) on the other hand handles less grave but still serious breaches of discipline. It usually comprises not fewer than three officers and has more limited sentencing powers. For minor infractions, commanding officers may conduct summary trials, which are administrative in nature and attract limited punishments such as reprimands, fines or short detention.
Read Also:
Contrary to popular belief, a court martial is not an arbitrary process. Allegations are first investigated by military police or intelligence units, after which charges are framed under relevant provisions of the Armed Forces Act. A competent military authority then convenes the court martial and appoints its members.
Accused personnel are entitled to defence counsel either military or civilian and the right to call witnesses, cross-examine prosecution witnesses and present a defence. The principle of fair hearing applies throughout. Evidence is presented, proceedings recorded and legal arguments made before the court reaches a verdict by majority decision. Any sentence imposed does not take effect until confirmed by the appropriate confirming authority, usually a Service Chief or the Chief of Defence Staff.
Nigeria’s court martial tradition cannot be separated from its coup history. The January 15, 1966 coup, led by a group of young army majors including Chukwuma Kaduna Nzeogwu, marked the Nigeria’s first violent rupture of constitutional order. Although the coup failed to establish full nationwide control, it eliminated key political and military leaders and triggered counter-coups and civil war. Formal court martial proceedings against the plotters were limited, largely because the coup ushered in military rule and the ensuing conflict overshadowed judicial processes. Nevertheless, the episode entrenched within the armed forces a deep institutional fear of internal rebellion.
A decade later, the February 13, 1976 coup attempt led by Lieutenant Colonel Bukar Suka Dimka tested military discipline more directly. The plot resulted in the assassination of Head of State, General Murtala Ramat Mohammed. After the coup collapsed within hours, Dimka was arrested on March 6, 1976, following a nationwide manhunt. A military tribunal tried Dimka and his accomplices, and on May 15, 1976, Dimka and six other officers were executed by firing squad after conviction for treason.
The most extensive use of military tribunals occurred after the April 22, 1990 attempted coup led by Major Gideon Gwaza Orkar. Orkar and his co-conspirators briefly seized the Federal Radio Corporation of Nigeria and announced the overthrow of the Babangida regime before loyalist forces regained control. Following tribunal proceedings chaired by senior officers, Orkar and 41 others were convicted of treason and executed on July 27, 1990. Several others received prison sentences, while some were acquitted. Further executions followed later that year after supplementary trials.
These trials, conducted under military regimes, differed markedly from courts martial under democratic governance. While tribunals during military rule operated under decrees with limited judicial oversight, post-1999 courts martial function strictly within the Armed Forces Act and are subject to civilian appellate review.
Under military law, mutiny involves collective disobedience or revolt against lawful authority, while insubordination refers to refusal to obey lawful orders. Sedition or conspiracy includes planning or encouraging actions aimed at overthrowing constituted authority. The Armed Forces Act prescribes punishments ranging from dismissal or reduction in rank to imprisonment and, historically, the death penalty.
Under civilian rule, sentencing practice has evolved. While courts martial retain severe powers, executions have not been carried out in recent decades, reflecting Nigeria’s broader human rights posture.
A key safeguard is the right of appeal. Court martial decisions are not final. Under the Armed Forces Act, a convicted person may appeal to the Court of Appeal and, on questions of law or constitutional interpretation, to the Supreme Court of Nigeria. Section 183 of the Act provides that appeals lie with the leave of the Court of Appeal, except where a death sentence is imposed, in which case the right of appeal is automatic. Appeals must be filed within 40 days of the promulgation of the court martial’s findings.
Convicted personnel may also approach the Federal High Court on grounds of jurisdiction, fair hearing or constitutional violations, with further recourse to appellate courts where applicable.
In the case of the 16 personnel recently court martialed by DHQ, the same legal principles apply. Subject to confirmation of sentences by the appropriate military authority, affected officers retain the right—where applicable—to challenge the outcome through legally prescribed appellate channels. Any such appeal would hinge on compliance with statutory timelines, jurisdictional competence and adherence to fair hearing requirements, rather than a re-litigation of military policy or command decisions.
Kabir Abdulsalam writes from Abuja.
