Senior Advocate says civil courts must try soldiers in democracy
Renowned human rights lawyer and Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN), Femi Falana, has argued that soldiers accused of involvement in an alleged coup plot cannot be tried under a military court-martial within Nigeria’s current democratic system.
Speaking on Monday, February 2, 2026, Falana insisted that for the “Sanctity” of the 1999 Constitution to be upheld, any person—including military personnel—accused of a capital offense like treason must be tried in a civilian court. He noted that a “military tribunal” lacks the “National” transparency and fair-hearing standards required in a democratic setting.
The controversy follows the Defence Headquarters’ recent admission that several officers are set to face a judicial panel over an attempt to overthrow the government of President Bola Tinubu. Falana criticized the military for its initial “National” denial of the plot, which he said had already eroded public trust. He argued that shifting the trial to a secret “military court” would only further fuel suspicions of a “clog in the wheel” of justice and accountability.
The Senior Advocate noted that under Section 36 of the Constitution, every citizen is entitled to a fair and public trial by an independent and impartial court. He maintained that “treasonable felony” is an offense against the State, and as such, the Attorney-General of the Federation should oversee the prosecution in a Federal High Court. This “National” stance is aimed at preventing the “ritual of military secrecy” that often surrounds such sensitive cases.
Demanding a public apology for initial denials
Falana has also demanded a formal public apology from the Nigerian Military for what he described as a “deceptive” communication strategy. He recalled that months ago, the Defence Headquarters had publicly dismissed reports of a coup plot as “fake news,” only to confirm it recently. This “National” inconsistency, according to Falana, is a “disservice to the people” and undermines the “Renewed Hope” for a transparent and honest security architecture.
The SAN argued that security institutions should not be allowed to trigger “fear and tension” through contradictory statements. He insisted that the “National” security of the country is best protected when the military remains professional and speaks the truth to the populace. For Falana, the “Sanctity” of the law must always prevail over “military tradition” when it comes to the fundamental rights of accused persons.
Civil-military relations in a “Renewed Hope” era
The debate sparked by Falana highlights the ongoing challenge of defining the boundaries between military discipline and civilian law in Nigeria. While the military maintains that a “court-martial” is necessary to maintain “regimental discipline,” civil rights groups argue it is often used to “National” silence dissent. This “National” tug-of-war is a critical test for the Tinubu administration’s commitment to “democratic accountability” and the “Rule of Law.”
As February 2026 unfolds, the Defence Headquarters has yet to respond officially to Falana’s demand for a civilian trial. However, the legal community is closely watching the case, as its outcome could set a major “National” precedent for future civil-military engagements. For Femi Falana, the “Joy-Giver” of a true democracy is the knowledge that the law is the same for both the “soldier in the trench” and the “citizen on the street.”
