Media
- Home
- Details
The Hon. Justice Olufunke Anuwe of the National Industrial Court has said that there is no written law or statutory provision that a senior officer must retire when an officer junior to him is appointed as a Service Chief, and urged the Armed Forces of Nigeria to seek directions and interpretations as to the “wasteful tradition” of retiring senior officers prematurely.
Justice Anuwe made the remark at the landmark Legal Training Seminar organised by the Nigerian Navy on Strategic Enforcement of Maritime and Labour Law for enhanced Naval Operations in Nigeria.
Hon. Justice Olufunke Anuwe who delivered paper on Labour Law and Military Service: Implications for the Armed Forces of Nigeria at the Headquarters Directorate of Legal Services (Army) explored the emerging trend in the context of the supremacy of Nigeria’s Constitution’ over Armed Forces Act and other laws, rules, and regulations governing the service of the personnel.
Justice Anuwe addressed a commonly debated issue on the Right of an Officer to resign or retire voluntarily. Justice Anuwe emphasised that individuals have the right to leave military service, and that authorities cannot compel an officer to remain against their will once proper notice has been given.
Justice Olufunke Anuwe delivering paper
Justice Anuwe affirmed that resignation is permissible when done in accordance with the law, citing section 217 of the 1999 Constitution, which presupposes that service in the armed forces must operate within constitutional and statutory frameworks.
Justice Anuwe decried the situation where officers are denied the right to voluntarily resign; meanwhile, experienced senior officers who are willing to continue service are compulsorily retired following the appointment of new service chiefs. My lord defined this action as the biggest irony within the military service.
Justice Anuwe commended the National Assembly for its on-going proposal to review the Armed Forces Act, and urged the armed forces to collaborate with the legislature in order to align its provisions with current realities and international best practices, including, of course, the constitution, which, as ever, is supreme.
In addition, on 15-year Voluntary Disengagement Rule in Nigeria’s Armed Force, Justice Anuwe stated that while the 15-year Rule might appear to be salutary in terms of maintaining service discipline, preventing premature departure (thus ensuring a return on the government's investment in personnel development and training) however, a more thorough study reveals that it undermines fundamental issues such as individual freedom, the limits of state authority, and the scope of military service in a democracy.
In conclusion, Justice Anuwe stressed that the Armed Forces of Nigeria (AFN) cannot be separated from Nigeria, and the argument that military law jurisprudence is different from labour law jurisprudence, and that the Armed Forces Act is distinct from the 1999 Constitution was highly misconceived.
Justice Anuwe stressed that reforming the intersection of labour law and military service may involve addressing issues of personnel welfare and the need for effective military discipline.
In attendance were armed forces personnel, Professors of Law, and members of the judiciary, reflecting a shared commitment to improving the legal and operational foundations of Nigeria’s naval system.
