A lawyer, Stella Justice, has countered those who argue that the Naval Officer, Lieutenant Ahmad Yerima, was not supposed to be at the site where he had a face-off with FCT Minister Nyesom Wike.
In the naval officer’s defence, Barrister Stella cited Section 217(2) of Nigeria’s 1999 Constitution and the Armed Forces Act, which he explained had legalised the officer’s involvement at the disputed land.
In a lengthy Facebook post, the lawyer reminded people that the naval officer stated that he was acting under an order not to allow Wike access to the building, noting that Yerima is absolved of any wrongdoing if that order came from the proper military command.
She maintained that people should not question the naval officer’s involvement, but rather ask if the order he received was valid, lawful, and from the right authority.
Her Facebook post partly read:
“MIN.WIKE VS SOLDIER/NAVAL OFFICER (Part1)
Before You Drag That Soldier, Read What the Law Says.
Before we start shouting that “a soldier has no business in civil matters,” let us go back to what the law actually says.
The 1999 Constitution (Section 217(2)) gives the Armed Forces five core duties:
1. Defend Nigeria from external aggression.
2. Maintain territorial integrity.
3. Secure our borders.
4. Suppress insurrection and act in aid of civil authorities when ordered by the President.
5. Perform any other role assigned by an Act of the National Assembly.
Then the ARMED FORCES ACT adds the professional obligations of every soldier:
1. Obey lawful orders from superior officers.
2. Maintain discipline and follow command structure.
3. Carry out assigned operations within the limits of the law.
So when some lawyers say “a soldier must not involve himself in civil matters,” the statement is only partly correct.
A soldier cannot on his own jump into civil issues.
But a soldier can act in a civil matter if there is a lawful directive from the proper authority.
In this Abuja case, the soldier said he was acting under an order not to allow the FCT Minister, Nyesom Wike, to demolish a particular building.
If that order came through the proper military command and is lawful, the soldier is simply carrying out his constitutional and statutory duty of obeying command.
The real question should not be:
“Why is a soldier involved?”
The real question should be:
Was the order he received lawful, valid, and from the right authority?
Because in military law, the duty to obey lawful orders is not optional.
Please Wait for the part 2.
Stella Justice
Legal and Marriage Clinic with Stella.”
