Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN) Femi Falana on Tuesday, 3 February 2026, stated that military officers accused of involvement in an alleged coup plot cannot be subjected to court‑martial proceedings under Nigeria’s democratic framework. His remarks have sparked debate over constitutional provisions, the scope of military justice, and the balance of civil‑military relations in the country.
Falana, a prominent human rights lawyer, emphasised that the nation’s constitution guarantees civilian supremacy over the military and limits the jurisdiction of military courts in matters involving political offences or alleged threats to constitutional governance. He argued that any attempt to prosecute officers through court‑martial for a coup allegation would contravene democratic principles and the rule of law.
The constitution is clear: military courts cannot try officers for offences that fall within the political or civil domain, Falana said. Allegations of a coup are inherently political, and such matters must be handled through civilian judicial processes to ensure fairness, transparency, and adherence to democratic norms.
Legal analysts noted that Falana’s commentary could influence on-going discussions about the treatment of military personnel accused of politically sensitive crimes, particularly amid heightened public scrutiny of the armed forces and civil‑military relations. Some experts say the statement underscores the importance of upholding constitutional safeguards even when national security is at stake.
The remarks have generated reactions from various quarters, including human rights advocates who support the insistence on civilian judicial oversight, as well as commentators advocating stricter measures to deter threats against democratic governance. Observers say the debate reflects the continuing tension in Nigeria between ensuring military discipline and protecting constitutional rights.
Falana’s statement on 3 February 2026 adds to ongoing discourse about the role of the military in a democratic society, the limits of court‑martial jurisdiction, and the proper channels for prosecuting allegations of sedition, mutiny, or attempts to undermine constitutional authority.
