Military Law (55)
HELD:
"Section 133 subsections (1) and 3 (b) of the Act provides as follows: -
HELD:
"The law on the effect of any General court-Martial not properly constituted, had long been well settled by this court in the case of state v. Olatunji (2003) 14 N.W.L.R. (Pt. 839) 138 at 161 where Kalgo JSC said -
HELD:
"The role of the Judge advocate is clearly advisory and he does not decide the guilt of an accused.
HELD:
"On the rightness of the trial GCM to have tried the Appellant on the correctness of the charge to which there was no objection, the Respondent's learned Counsel submitted that the case of CAPT. O.D. ERIZEA V. NIGERIAN ARMY, delivered on 29/4/15 by this Honourable Court is distinguishable from the present appeal because there was a timeous objection by the accused person before his plea in compliance with the provisions of Rule 37(1) of the Rules of Procedure (Army) 1972.
HELD:
"An examination of section 154(6) of the Armed Forces Act is important. Section 154(6) states that:
HELD:
"Section 68(1)(a) of the Armed Forces Act creates a strict liability offence.
HELD:
"Section 68 (1) (a) of the Armed Forces Act states that:
HELD:
"The maximum conviction for manslaughter in a regular court is life imprisonment, but the trial judge has discretion.
HELD:
"At the root of this appeal is the jurisdiction of the trial Court Martial which the Appellant contends was ousted with the disqualification of one of the members of the panel, a point disagreed with by the Respondents.