Col Mohammed Ma’aji, the second accused person in the charges brought against 36 persons accused of alleged mutiny and plot to overthrow the government of President Bola Tinubu, has challenged the jurisdiction of the Defence Headquarters Garrison General Court Martial sitting in Asokoro, Abuja, to hear the case.
Ma’aji, in a preliminary objection filed before the court martial in charge No: DHQ/GAR/ABJ/49/ADM, between the Armed Forces of Nigeria and Brig Gen M.A. Sadiq, Col Ma’aji, alongside 35 others, urged the court martial to strike out the charges instituted against him, arguing that the military tribunal lacked the jurisdiction to entertain the case.
In the objection, Ma’aji contended that the charges were fundamentally defective and incompetent in law.
The objection, brought pursuant to Rules 36(1) and 37(1) of the Rules of Procedure Army 1972, urged the tribunal to make an order striking out and/or dismissing the charges against the 2nd Accused.
“Take notice that the 2nd accused hereby objects to the jurisdiction of the General Court Martial to entertain Counts One to Nine of the charges preferred against the 2nd Accused in Charge No: DHQ/GAR/ABJ/49/ADM, namely ARMED FORCES OF NIGERIA V. BRIG. GEN. M. A. SADIQ (N/10321) & 35 ORS and hereby prays the General Court Martial for the following reliefs:
“An Order striking out and/or dismissing the charges against the 2nd Accused in Charge No: DHQ/GAR/ABJ/49/ADM for lack of jurisdiction. An order declining jurisdiction to entertain the charge as constituted.
“And for such further order(s) as the Honourable General Court Martial may deem fit to make in the circumstances.”
In the charge, the second accused also argued that the complainant, listed as the Armed Forces of Nigeria, lacked the legal capacity to institute criminal proceedings.
According to him, “The complainant (Armed Force of Nigeria) is not a juristic person and thereby lacks the requisite competence to initiate and prosecute the criminal proceedings in Charge No: DHQ/GAR/ABJ/49/ADM.”
He further maintained that because the complainant allegedly lacked legal personality, the General Court Martial was equally deprived of jurisdiction to hear the matter.
Citing several Supreme Court and Court of Appeal authorities, including Green v. Green, Fawehinmi v NBA, and Mothercat Nig Ltd v Reg. Trustees of the Full Gospel Assembly Nig, the defence argued that only natural persons or entities expressly recognised by law could sue or be sued.
The written address submitted in support of the objection stated: “The name ‘Armed Forces of Nigeria’ described as ‘complainant’ in Charge No: DHQ/GAR/ABJ/49/ADM is unknown to law and destitute of any legal capacity to exercise Prosecutorial powers in respect of the charges preferred against the 2nd Accused.”
The second accused also challenged the competence of counts one to nine of the charge, which allegedly accused him of inciting other officers to join a plot to overthrow President Tinubu.
Ma’aji insisted that the allegations contained in the particulars of the charges did not fall within the offence of mutiny as contemplated under Section 52(1)(b) of the Armed Forces Act, 2004.