Nigerian Army Court-Martials Two Generals

 

The authorities of the Nigerian Army have convened a Special Court Martial to try two senior officers of the service. The officers are, Maj. Gen. Ibrahim Sani and Maj. Gen. Patrick Falola.

It was gathered that because of the status of officers involved in the court martial, the convening order for the court was personally signed by the Chief of Army Staff, Lt. Gen. Tukur Buratai.

The members of the court who were sworn in by the Judge Advocate, Col. Saeed Musa, were the

Chief of Policy and Plan of the Nigerian Air Force, (President), AVM Iya Abdulahi, Rear Admiral Peter Agba, and Rear Admiral Edwin Enechukwu. A look at the constitution of the court at the Army Headquarters, Garrison, at the Mogadishu Cantonment, Abuja, showed that no single Major General of the Nigerian Army was included as a member apart from the Judge Advocate whose responsibility “is to serve as a guide to the panel.”
A senior Army officer told Punch that the Air Force and Naval top shots were appointed as members of the high profile panel because it was a Special Court Martial.
Falola was the Commander, 68 Hospital, Lagos. Isah was the Chief of Army Transformation and Innovation Centre until the Army authorities decision to post them for jurisdiction.
The officers are being ‘accused of offences bordering on service discipline.’
After the swearing in of the officers of the court and the introduction of the counsel for the accused, the court adjourned sitting to May 9, 2016 to commence hearing into the case of Falola.
Shortly after the introduction of the members of the court, the two generals were asked if they had objection to the constitution of the panel to which they all answered in the negative.
A demand by the lead counsel for the prosecution, Lt. Col. Ukpe Ukpe, that the Judge Advocate should also put himself forward for the same procedure as was done by the members of the court was turned down in accordance with the stipulations of military laws.
President of the court, AVM Gbum assured that the trial would not be delayed in the interest of justice.