[size=14pt]Boko Haram: General’s trial begins over suspects’ escape[/size]
By Our Reporter 23/08/2011 00:23:00
Font size:

The trial of an Army General over last year’s escape of two Boko Haram suspects from detention in Bauchi began yesterday in Jos, the Plateau State capital.

The Special Court Martial was inaugurated by the General Officer Commanding (GOC) 3 Armoured Division, Jos, Maj.-Gen Sunday Idoko.

On trial is the former Commander of the 33 Artillery Brigade, Bauchi, Brig.-Gen. Muraina Raji.

The proceedings began with a fresh charge that Raji allegedly took N387,000 belonging to the Army.

President of the court Maj.-Genl John Zaruwa read the charge. The proceedings were dominated by argument on the constitution of the panel by Judge Advocate, Lt.-Col. Bernard Okorie.

Lagos lawyer Femi Falana, leading three other lawyers for the accused, objected to the new charge, wondering why the Judge Advocate should not participate in the trial.

Although the court overruled the objection to the panel’s constitution, it upheld Raji’s objection to the membership of Brig.-Gen. Agboola Robinson.

He was replaced with Brig.-Gen. B.T. Ogini.

Overruling Falana’s argument on Okorie’s membership, the court held that for not participating in the investigation that led to Raji’s trial, his membership would not influence the court.

Falana told the court that he was aware that the accused had objected to the participation of two members of the panel last week.

He said the president of the court had granted one of his objections.

The lawyer argued with the judge advocate, citing sections of the Rules of Procedure of the Army.

Falana said: “Having regard to the role of the Judge Advocate, under Section 80 and 81 of the Rules of Procedures of the Army, it is the duty of the Judge Advocate, particularly as outlined in Section 80, …to advise the court about its constitution and any defect of the charge.

“Now, the only fear of the accused is that the Judge Advocate, as a member of this division, the Judge Advocate of this Division, took part in the investigation, giving legal advice. He will not be in a position, sir, to advise.

“Particularly under Sector 340 (4) of the Rules, the Judge Advocate is to advise the court on any defect in the constitution of the court or any defect in the charge sheet. If we are challenging the charge sheet - and we intend to do that - will the Judge Advocate be in a position to advise that it will contradict the charge that he had helped to put in place, sir? That is why we are urging your Lordship to look at this matter.”

He cited Section 134 (2) of the Armed Forces Act (AFA), which states that “anybody who helped in investigating the accused, the trial of the accused, the Commanding Officer and any officer who investigated the accused or has acted as one of the persons holding an enquiry relating to the subject-matter of the charge, shall not sit as a member of the court martial or act as the Judge Advocate at the court martial.”

http://www.thenationonlineng.net/2011/index.php/news/16912-boko-haram%3A-general%E2%80%99s-trial-begins-over-suspects%E2%80%99-escape.html

Great!!!