Soldier Drags Nigerian Army, Others To Court Over Dismissal, Unfair Military Trial

A Lance Corporal in the Nigerian Army, Gwotyel Justine, who was alleged to have been wrongly dismissed from service, has filed a suit before a Federal High Court, Lagos, against the Nigerian Army and five others, seeking to overturn his unlawful dismissal from the service.

Justine in the suit marked FHC/L/MISC/620/2026, also alleged serious procedural irregularities and denial of fair hearing during his orderly room trial conducted on April 29, 2025, at the Headquarters of the 9 Brigade of the Nigerian Army in Ikeja.

Listed as first to six defendants in the suit are: the Nigerian Army; Hon. Minister of Defence; Chief of Defence Staff; Chief of Army Staff; General Officer Commanding (Headquaters 81 Division Nigerian Army) and Directorate of Army Legal Services.

The suit filed by his lawyer, A. C. Nwokoye, is pursuant to Order 34 Rule 1& 2 of the Federal High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules 2019, and under the court’s inherent jurisdiction.

The applicant is asking the court to issue an order of certiorari to quash the proceedings, judgment, and execution of the military trial, which he claims was fundamentally flawed.
In the motion,

He is also seeking reinstatement into the Army and a stay of any further actions related to the judgment pending the determination of his application.

Justine is specifically asking the court for the followings: “An Order quashing all the proceedings, judgment and consequent execution of the judgement of the Orderly room trial delivered at HQ. 9 Brigade Nigerian Army Ikeja. Lagos on the 29th of April, 2025,

“An Order re-instating the Applicant into the Nigeria Army.

“An Order staying any further proceeding by 1st, 3rd, 4th and 5th respondents and executive of the judgement of the Orderly trial held at Headquarter 9 Brigade Nigerian Army, Ikeja, Lagos state on the 29th Of April, 2025. And for such further or other Orders as this Court may deem fit to make in the e circumstances.”

Justine’s an affidavit in support of the suit reads in parts: “That I am a Soldier serving with 192 Battalion (Rear) Owode Yewa, Ogun state under Headquarters 81 Division. Nigeria Army 3 Kofo Abayaomi Ikoyi, Lagos.

“That I was charged with two court charges of; (1) Defamation of character under S. 373 of the criminal code Act, Punishable under S. 375 of the criminal code Act LFN (2) Disobedience to particular orders under S. 56 of the Armed forces Act A20 LFN 2004 by my Unit Commanding Officer at 192 Battalion (Rear) Owode Yewa and referred to the Brigade Commander Headquarters, 9 Brigade Ikeja where | was consequently tried on the 29th of April 2025 and sentenced to i. Court I -Reduction in Rank and ii. Court II — Dismissed Regiment

“That I am dissatisfied with the Orderly summary trial and conviction and intends the Orderly room trial decision in the two court charges be reversed/quashed.

“That pursuant to S. 147 of the Armed forces Act, cap A20 LFN 2004 which requires that I have to exhaust all the necessary avenues to imilitarily redress the travesty I suffered instructed m counsels Messrs. A.C Nwakoye & CO to petition to Army superior Authority. And that in line with my instructions my Counsels wrote an Application to the Brigade Command dated the 2nd of May, 2025 demanding for charge sheet, statements and other records of my trial to enable him appraise and take necessary legal steps.

“That similar application dated 2nd May was also served on the commanding officer of 19 Battalion (Rear) Owode Yewa Ogun State (Photocopy of the application is hereby annexed an marked as Exhibit A?).
“That not receiving any response from both the commanding officer 192 Battalion (Rear) an. the Brigade Commander 9 Brigade Ikeja My Counsel in order to meet up with the provision, of S. 147 of the Armed Forces Act cap A20 LFN petitioned the Army Superior Authority to wit; i. Chief Of Army Staff, ii. The General Officer Commanding, (HQ. 81 Division Nigerian Army Lagos).

“That the Army Superior Authority has failed / neglected to acknowledge receipt of the petition and that perturbed by the silence of the Army Superior Authority I have instructed my Counsel

“That irked by the silence of Army Superior Authority letter of reminder dated 2nd June 2025, was written and served on the Respondents. And that the Army Superior Authority has in their usual manner refused/ neglected to acknowledge receipt of the Reminder letter by Counsel.

“That I have unsuccessfully tried to explore other avenues to appeal to the Army Superior authority to reverse their decision to no avail. And that till date the Amy Authorities has refused /neglected to respond to my petition. Applicant for record of proceedings and Reminder letters.

“That I intend that the trial be quashed/ reversed but have to exhaust all legal requirement pursuant to S. 147 of the Armed forces Act cap A 20 LFN 2004. And that there was no record of proceedings during trial and I was denied fair hearing as I was not allowed to defend myself personally or by a legal practitioner of my choice.

That the I have unsuccessfully tried to explore other avenues to appeal to the Army Superior Authority to reverse their decision. And that I want the Orderly room, summary trial to be quashed, reversed on the following grounds: ‘a. That the trial officer was biased in his trial and consequent conviction of the Applicant as his discretion was flattered and in violation of the principle of fairness, equity and good conscience and in contravention of S 36 of the 1999 constitution of RN (as amended)

‘b. That there was no record of proceedings during trial as the trial officer based his decisions on mere speculations and hearsay to arrive at his conclusions.

‘c. That proper investigation required to prove any criminal offence beyond reasonable doubt was overtly abused as proper investigation was never conducted

‘d. That the trial officer hinged his decision on service discipline and failed to address salient issues to sustain a conviction.

‘e. That the trial officer failed to address its mind to the fact that the onus of proof lies on the prosecution and this burden has not been shifted as the prosecuting trial officer has failed to prove any offence known to law

‘f. That the orderly room trial is fraught with manifest irregularities, absurdities and breach of rules of procedure as guaranteed by our most cherished laws, especially the rules of evidence.

‘g. That failure to call material witnesses to testify to the allegations against the applicant leaves much to be desired as it cannot be left to mere speculation or to the whims and caprices of the trial officers as it was during the Orderly room trial.
‘h. That the Respondents failed to properly consider and evaluate the entirety of evidence before passing sentences
‘i. ‘That the discretion of the trial officer was unsteady. portends bias, pressured and repugnant to Natural justice, equity and good conscience,
‘J. That the alleged offence is not summarily triable by reference to Section 114 (613) of the Armed Forces Act,
‘k. That no notice of Order of schedule or copy of charge sheet/abstract of evidence was given to the Applicant before, during or after trial.
‘l. That there was no record of proceeding contrary to Schedule 3 of Rules of procedure Army 1972.
‘m. That I was not given the opportunity to make my defense or call any witness.
‘n. That there was no record of summary trial in accordance with the form set out in Schedule 3 of the Rule of procedure Amy’.

“That the trial was not conducted in accordance with laws and regulations as the case was not considered on its merit.

“That pursuant to Order 34(1) of the Federal High Court (Civil Procedure) rules 2029 brings this application for an Order of Certiorari ro remove into the Honourable Court for purpose of being quashed all the proceedings and subsequent judgement of the summary Orderly room trial held on the 29th of April, 2025 at HQ 9 Brigade of the Nigerian Army, Ikeja, Lagos state. And that I believe that issues arising are issues that border on substantive justice

“That it will be in the interest of justice to grant my application for Order of Certiorari and that the Respondents will not be jeopardized if this application is granted.”

At the hearing of the matter on May 4, while the applicant in the suit present, none of the respondents was in court and they were not equally represented.

Consequently, Justice Ambrose Lewis-Allagoa ordered that the hearing notice be issued and served by substituted means, while adjourned the matter to May 13, for hearing.