Nigerian Navy & Ors V. Lt. Commander S. A. Ibe Lambert (2007)

LAWGLOBAL HUB Lead Judgment Report

A. OGUNTADE, J.S.C

The respondent, Lt. Commander S. A. Ibe Lambert was an officer in the Nigerian Navy. She was arraigned before a General Court Martial (hereinafter referred to as ‘the trial tribunal’) on 9-07-97 on a five count charge. At the conclusion of trial, she was discharged and acquitted on four of the five counts but found guilty on the 3rd count which reads:-

“Disobedience to correct standing orders contrary to section 57(1) of the Armed Forces Decree No. 103 of 1993 as amended.”

Dissatisfied with her conviction, she appealed before the Court of Appeal, Lagos (hereinafter referred to as ‘the court below’). The court below on 6-12-2005 allowed her appeal and the respondent was discharged and acquitted. The appellants have come on a final appeal against the judgment of the court below. In their appellants’ brief, the two issues identified for determination in the appeal read:-

“1. Was the Court of Appeal right to find that there was no credible evidence upon which the conviction was based.

2.Whether the court below was right in law in holding that exhibit 4 tendered by the appellants is a public document that needs to be certified.”

The respondent formulated two alternative issues. The said issues would appear exfacie to be similar to the appellants’ issues. A close scrutiny of them however appears to project the standpoint of the respondent on the issues whilst at the same time encompassing the appellant’s issues. I shall be guided in this judgment by the respondent’s issues which read:-

“1. Whether exhibit 1, that is to say, the extra-judicial statement made by the respondent is a confessional statement; and if so, whether the Court of Appeal was not correct in law to hold that in the absence of any credible evidence, count 3 as charged was not proved against the respondent.

2.Whether the statement by the Court of Appeal that exhibit 4 among others tendered by the appellants is a public document that needed certification weighed in the mind of the court and/or affected its judgment.”

Now, section 57( I) and (2) of the Armed Forces Decree No. 105 of 1993 as amended under which the respondent was charged provides:

“1. A person subject to service law under this Decree who contravenes or fails to comply with a provision of an order to which this section applies, being a provision known to him or which he might reasonably be expected to know is guilty of an offence under this section and liable, on conviction for a term not exceeding two years or any less punishment provided by this Act.

2. This section applies to standing orders or other routine orders of a continuing nature made for any formation, unit or body of troops or for any area, garrison or place or for any ship,train or aircraft.”

The standing order which the respondent was alleged to have contravened or failed to comply with was tendered in evidence before the trial tribunal as exhibit 4. The said exhibit reads:-

” Standing Order No. NHQ/015/93/Ph/Vol.1/44

VISIT TO FOREIGN MISSION