The palpable excitement in the Senate as it discussed the Armed Forces (Repeal and Re-enactment) Bill, 2025 (SB 791) is understandable, given its attempt to reform military laws and bring them into conformity with modern, democratic times. The Senate regards the bill’s amendment as a decisive step toward strengthening accountability in Nigeria’s military justice system. Without doubt, there is a need to, in the words of Senator Sampson Ekong, APC, Akwa Ibom South, who called the proposal a “profound reform initiative”, deepen defence policy and reinforce professionalism within the Armed Forces.

The bill seeking to repeal and re-enact the Armed Forces Act to make it constitutionally compliant, democratically accountable, and operationally modern has passed the second reading. The challenge for the lawmakers is to ensure that they do not throw away the baby with the bathwater, given the special institution that the Armed Forces constitute. The Armed Forces of Nigeria remain the cornerstone of the country’s sovereignty and national security, as noted by the Chairman of the Senate Committee on Army, Senator Abdulaziz Musa Yar’adua, APC, Katsina Central, who sponsored the bill.

The bill proposed far-reaching reforms to the Nigerian Armed Forces, including a key provision that would make convictions handed down by military tribunals subject to judicial review by civil courts, a move hailed by lawmakers as critical to ensuring fairness, transparency, and adherence to constitutional principles.
  
Leading debate on the general principles of the bill, Yar’Adua said the existing Armed Forces Act, originally derived from military decrees of the 1960s and last consolidated in 2004, was outdated and incompatible with Nigeria’s democratic framework and evolving security environment.

As the Senators continue to scrutinise the bill, they should bear in mind the need to spare the military of bureaucratic red tape that has largely characterised public institutions and rendered them inefficient and often ineffective. Since its formation decades ago, the Nigerian Armed Forces have distinguished themselves as a disciplined institution with high integrity. The Senate should do nothing to dent this legacy, as it is a prop on the country’s sagging reputation.

Yar’adua had explained that the proposed law would align military governance with constitutional norms and international best practices while introducing reforms to disciplinary procedures, operational structures, and welfare provisions.

Attention to the key area of reform of the law was drawn by Senator Tahir Monguno, APC, Borno North, who highlighted the constitutional significance of the proposed judicial review of military tribunal decisions.

According to him, the current system, which allows boards of inquiry and military authorities to serve as both investigators and adjudicators, violates fundamental legal principles. Monguno said, “This bill seeks to bring our military laws in tandem with international best practices and under the control of democratically elected institutions.”
 
To be clear, military tribunals are indispensable. They maintain discipline, ensure operational readiness, and deliver swift justice in circumstances where civilian courts may be ill-equipped to function. Their specialised knowledge of military operations, rules of engagement, and national security concerns is vital.

They offer procedural flexibility and can impose sanctions uniquely suited to military conduct.
 
But these advantages are only one side of the story.

Military tribunals function within a rigid command structure—a structure that, by design, prioritises obedience. This same structure creates fertile ground for command influence, where outcomes may be shaped not by law and evidence but by institutional pressure, hierarchy, or political expediency. When the chain of command and the pursuit of justice collide, justice often comes off worse.

There are many troubling examples in Nigeria. In 2015, Brigadier General Enitan Ransome-Kuti was convicted of “cowardice” and “mutiny” after Boko Haram attacked Baga. Though his six-month sentence was later commuted and he was demoted, questions linger: Was he disciplined for genuine dereliction of duty, or was he simply made a scapegoat in the face of broader institutional failure?
  
In 1998, General Oladipo Diya was tried in secret, sentenced to death, and later spared; General Oladipo Diya’s case epitomised a process shrouded in opacity. The public never learned whether the trial met even minimum standards of fairness.
 
Major Akinloye Akinyemi’s 1995 conviction by a “secret special tribunal” also demonstrates how military justice, without oversight, can operate far outside the bounds of transparency. His appeal to the civil courts underscored the tension between military secrecy and constitutional rights. These cases illustrate a systemic weakness, while concerns persist even in contemporary times.

Where oversight exists as provided for in the extant laws, it often validates these concerns. In the case of Private Haruna Inusa, the Court of Appeal overturned his conviction on grounds of bias and violations of fair hearing. The ECOWAS Court, in Private Eli v. FRN, voided another court-martial entirely because it lacked proper confirmation under the Armed Forces Act.

A high number of military convictions appealed between 1990 and 2014 in Nigeria were overturned, thus revealing that the military justice system, as currently structured, may be failing its own standards.

While protecting the sanctity and authority of the military, a transparent appeal system is a safeguard—one that reinforces professionalism, strengthens discipline, and affirms constitutional norms. Service members do not shed their rights at the barracks gate. The Constitution protects them, too. But the Senate should not make laws that subject the military into a pawn being manipulated by the courts in the guise of democracy and accountability.

In societies where the military has often acted without adequate scrutiny, judicial oversight becomes a stabilising force. It reassures the public that military power is exercised responsibly and within the boundaries of the law. It prevents the misuse of military courts for political purposes. And it ensures that the rights of soldiers—many of whom are drawn from the most vulnerable segments of society—are not sacrificed on the altar of expediency.

As the Armed Forces Bill goes through further scrutiny, the Senate will do well to invite the military to make necessary input into the new law, both to avoid unduly exposing the institution to judicial vagaries capable of undermining its integrity and to ensure a seamless compliance with democratic ideals.

The armed forces should not be weakened under any circumstances. Rather, it should be reformed to legitimise it, strengthen public trust and ensure that justice—true justice—remains the cornerstone of national security.