Court Martial Defense Attorney - Mutiny: Judgment to hold April 27
Written by Dayo Johnson
FOR the second time, judgment in the mutiny charge preferred against the 28 Peace Keeping Soldiers standing trial in Akure, has again been shifted to April 27 this year. Reasons for the change in the date was not given but Vanguard, however, learnt that the judgment had been written even before the April 6 date that was first given by Brig-Gen Bauka.
President of the Court, Brig-Gen. Ishaya Bauka had earlier given April 6 date for the judgment after the submission of the Judge Advocate, Group Capt. M.E. Ahmed at the 323 Artillery Regiment, venue of the trial but later shifted it till today, April 20.
One of the counsel to the accused person, Ogele Morakinyo told newsmen that the date of the judgment has been shifted again by the President of the Court martial.
It was the lead Counsel to the accused person, Femi Falana that informed newsmen of the April 20 date.
According to Ogele, the shift was communicated to the counsels by the President of the court martial, Brigadier General Bauka last week.
It would be recalled that last year the soldiers had protested the non payment of their allowances on return from United Nations Peacekeepers in Liberia last year.
Four senior officers and a sergeant accused of stealing the accused persons allowances have been convicted and sentenced by the same Court.
Sixteen witnesses were called during the trail by the prosecution counsel to prove its case and while evidences including video recording of the protest from where he identified some of the soldiers were tendered
The prosecution, led Lt. Col. T.S. Nurseman had tendered some exhibits to prove its case while the defense led by Mr. Femi Falana, also called witnesses including the accused soldiers to prove their innocence.
Falana had during the address asked the Court to acquit the soldiers since the prosecution has failed “woefully” to prove the charge of mutiny against the suspects.
He argued that the video recording which the prosecution team tendered as exhibit had been tampered with and could not be relied upon by the court.
Falana also said that the same court martial should free the accused soldiers because it only last week gave the four officers who were responsible for stealing of the soldiers allowances light punishment for their grievous offence.
He said that although stealing attracted seven years imprisonment but some of the officers were demoted while some lost seniority. Based on this, he said that the court should discharge and acquit the soldiers.
According to him, issues of unpaid peacekeeping allowances had become synonymous with Nigerian Army and it was high time the authorities did something to stop it.
According to him “although the ex-peacekeepers protested the illegal diversion of their allowances but he stated that they neither engaged violence nor engaged in an act capable of putting Nigerian army in imminent danger.He said that the “accused persons did not conspire with foreign forces to subvert the sovereignty of Nigeria . “Like treasonable felony, the offence of mutiny attracts life imprisonment. This confirms that mutiny is concerned with acts capable of subverting the sovereignty of a nation or undermining discipline in its armed forces.
“The spontaneous protest which was said to have occurred at the Owena Barracks, Akure Ondo State on July 5, 2008 cannot, by any stretch of imagination, be said to be a mutiny capable of subverting the sovereignty of Nigeria or undermining discipline in the armed forces. As the facts in this case do not justify the charge, we urge the court to dismiss the case and discharge and acquit the accused persons.”
The Human Right Activist told the court that the accused persons had constitutional right to protest as provided under Section 38 and 40 of 1999 Constitution. He argued further that although the 28 soldiers were soldiers but they could not be denied of this right as citizens of Nigeria .
But the Prosecuting witness T S Nurseman said that the evidence which was direct evidence was weighty and there was no way the accused persons could be freed
Nurseman had earlier in his address said that “the military law was of the belief that if only two army officers disagreed openly with their boss on any issue or even looked at him in face and called him by name, the set of officers were guilty of mutiny, which according to military law is a capital offence.
He said that the prosecution had proved the case of mutiny against the accused persons beyond reasonable doubt.
He said that the accused soldiers on July 4 disobeyed the Commanding Officer of the 323 Artillery went on a violent demonstration
He submitted that the court should not free the 28 soldiers based on technicalities of law because their conduct was opposed to military discipline and the nation at large.
Michael Waddington is a court martial lawyer – court martial attorney that defends military personnel worldwide as well as deployed civilian contractors subject to the UCMJ. He defends Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine, Coast Guard, and civilian contractor court martial cases. He has successfully defended military personnel as a court martial lawyer Army Navy Marine & Air Force court martials in Germany, England, Italy, Iraq, Kuwait, Korea, Okinawa, Japan, Yokota, and throughout the United States. military-defense-lawyer-recentcases.htm.
Comments on this entry are closed.