Criminal Liability Of Wearing Armed Forces Uniform In Nigeria By Chidera Nwokeke

Do you know that it is an offence for a police officer and other
paramilitary bodies to wear military camouflage? Do you know it is
an offence for a wife, fiancée, child or relatives of an armed
force member to wear their camouflage or even to use it and snap
pre-wedding pictures with it? Do you know that it amounts to the
offence of conspiracy against a member of the armed forces to
release their uniform to anyone else?  Do you know that, it is
not a violation of your right to freedom of expression when you are
apprehended for unlawfully wearing a camouflage? Do you also know
that there are persons that can still wear armed forces uniform
even while they are not a member? This article will determine the
abovementioned questions.

It is worthy to note that in this present Nigeria, the respect
for our laws, national symbols is far into the desert and if
nothing is done about it, it will wander into the island and
virtually become a mirage. It is kooky and grotesque to see those
who are meant to enforce and protect our laws infracting and aiding
others to contravene the provisions of our laws.  In Nigeria,
it is not new to see a member of the armed forces giving out his
uniform or any of his camouflage to the fiancée or wife to snap
pre-wedding pictures or their children wearing same or even members
of the Police and other paramilitary bodies.

In consideration of the security threat and purpose, the
legislature deemed it fit to outlaw or regulate the use of armed
forces uniforms by persons who are not their members. But the
question that begs for answer is, the outlaw of the use of uniforms
of armed forces (which include their camouflage) has it been able
to reduce security problems and impersonations?

The pith and thrust of this article, is to ascertain the legal
implication of wearing these uniforms by persons who are not their
members. This article will also succinctly consider the laws
restricting the use of these uniforms, and also ascertain whether
the members of the armed forces can personally deal with offenders
or are they to bring them before the court.

Section 110 of the Criminal Code provide
thus:

Any person who – unlawfully wearing the uniform of forces, etc
L.N. 112 of 1964, 1967 No 27.

• Not being a person serving in any of the armed forces of
  Nigeria, wears the uniform or any part of the uniform of such
  forces or any the armed dress having the appearance or bearing any
  of the regimental or other distinctive marks of such uniforms;
  or
• Not being a person holding any office or authority under the
  government of Nigeria or of any part thereof, wears any uniform or
  distinctive badge or mark or carries any token calculated
  to convey the impression that such person holds any office
  or authority under the government;

 Is guilty of an offence and is liable to imprisonment
for one month or to a fine of ten naira unless he proves that he
had the permission of the president or of the Governor of a state
or wear such uniform or dress, badge or mark or to carry such
token;

Provided that this section shall not apply to the wearing of
any uniform or dress in the course of a stage play or in any bona
fide public entertainment.

A perusal on the above section shows that it is unlawful for a
person who is not a member of the armed forces to wear their
uniform. The armed forces of Nigeria includes: Nigerian Army,
Nigeria Navy, Nigerian Air force.  This simply means a member
of the Nigerian Police force or other paramilitary bodies that wear
the uniform or any part of the uniform (camouflage) of the armed
forces are liable under Section 110 (1) Criminal
Code.

However, the Nigeria Police can only use the uniform
(camouflage) when in joint operation with the military or on
special operation such as specific anti-riot missions as may be
permitted by the president of the country who is the GCFR. Apart
from these reasons and the exceptions below, a police officer can
be held liable for committing an offence under Section 110
Criminal Code.

Perusing through the provisions of Section 110 Criminal Code, it
is manifestly evident that there are only two exceptions or
instances a person will not be liable under this section.

1. If it is worn with the permission and consent of the president
   or Governor of a State.
2. If it is worn in the course of a stage play or in any bona fide
   public entertainment.

From the above exceptions, it shows that an actor or actress or
music artiste can wear the armed forces uniform but they can only
wear it in the course of a movie shoot or in any genuine public
entertainment. So aside these instances, if they should wear these
uniforms, they can be held liable under this section.  Going
by the above exceptions and section, you will agree with me that
even an officer in the armed forces does not have the power to
permit or allow or agree to allow any person that is not a member
of the armed forces to wear their uniform or any part of it
thereof.

In our present Nigeria, we see instances where an officer of the
armed forces will allow the fiancée or wife or children to put on
camouflage to walk about in the street or even snap pre-wedding
pictures with it and post on Facebook. Can   these
persons be held liable? I answer in the affirmative and strongly
contend that they can be held liable until they prove that they
have the permission of the President or Governor or they are in
stage play or in any bona fide public entertainment. It is apropos
and kosher at this point to state that an officer who allows or
agree to allow his uniform by those who are not members of the
armed forces can be held liable for conspiracy to commit any
offence not a felony.

Section 517 Criminal Code provides thus: “Any
person who conspires with another to commit any offence which is
not a felony or to do any act in any part of the world, which if
done in Nigeria would be an offence but not a felony and which is
an offence under the laws in force in the place where it is
proposed to be done, is guilty of a misdemeanour and is liable to
imprisonment for two years. The offender cannot be arrested without
warrant.

The court in the case of BABARINDE & ORS V STATE
(2013) LPELR-SC.169/2012, held that Conspiracy as an
offence is the agreement by two or more persons to do or cause to
be done an illegal act or legal act in an illegal means. The actual
agreement constitutes the offence and it is not necessary to prove
that the act has in fact been committed. – KAYODE v
STATE (2016) LPELR-SC.83/2012. To prove conspiracy
and be able to secure conviction, the prosecution must prove
against the officer or member of the armed force (1) an agreement
between two or more persons to do or cause to be done some illegal
act or some act which is not illegal by illegal means. (2)
Individual participation in the conspiracy by each of the accused
person and this position was held in the case of GARBA
v COP (2007) 16 NWLR (PT 1060) 378 @ 405.

The prosecution in proving this offence of conspiracy against
the officer must prove their case beyond reasonable doubt and this
would be achieved by ensuring that all the necessary and vital
ingredients of the charge of conspiracy are proved by evidence.-
COP v AMUTA (2017) 4 NWLR (Pt. 1556) p. 379 @
384. In the instance of an officer snapping
pre-wedding picture with the fiancée and she is putting on his
camouflage, such an officer can be held liable for conspiracy for
agreeing with her to commit an offence under Section 110 of
the Criminal code, which is not a felony.

The penalty for any person who contravenes the provisions of
Section 110 is just 1 month imprisonment or a fine
of N 10 (Ten Naira) which is laughable though. The essence of the
restriction on the use of this uniform (camouflage) from the police
and other paramilitary bodies is to streamline its use and to avoid
the abusive use of it, in view of the security implications and
concerns raised on the clamour, duplicity and proliferation of
camouflage uniforms in the country.  Section 110 (1)
of Criminal Code is replicated in Section 79 of
the Criminal Law of Lagos State, 2011 and the penalty for
the offence is 2 years imprisonment with no option of a fine.

Furthermore, Section 111 of Criminal Code makes
it an offence for “any person who sells or gives any uniform, or
part of a or any dress, badge or mark, as in the last preceding
section mentioned, to any person who is not authorised to wear the
same, is guilty of an offence and is liable to the penalties
prescribed in the said section”. So, from this section, tailors and
all this Aboki sellers that sells camouflage to persons who are not
authorised to wear same are liable under this section. For the
prosecution to secure conviction, they must show that there was a
selling or giving away of such uniforms or any part thereof and the
person it was given to, is not authorised to wear same.

To boot, Section 251 of Criminal Code provides
that “any person who, not being a person serving in any of the
armed or police forces of Nigeria, wears the uniform of any of
these forces, or any dress having the appearance or bearing any of
the regimental or other distinctive marks of any such uniform, in
such manner or in such circumstances as to be likely to bring
contempt on that uniform, or employs any other person so to wear
such uniform or dress is guilty of a simple offence, and is liable
to imprisonment for three months or to a fine of N 40 (Forty
Naira)”.

An inspection on the above section shows that it is also an
offence for a person who is not a police officer to put on their
uniform or any part of it thereof but that is not our interest in
this article.  The above section made no room for an exception
like Section 110 did. In consideration of the
above section and Section 110, one will summarily run to the
conclusion that Section 251 Criminal Code is used
as a way to limit one of the exception in Section 110 which
provides that ‘you can wear the uniform in the course
of bona fide public entertainment or in a stage play’
but the uniform should not be brought into contempt by the manner
it is used. The question that begs for answer is what amounts to
bringing contempt on the uniform? There is no judicial authority
that has given interpretation of Section 251 of Criminal Code but
in my humble opinion what amounts to bringing contempt on the
uniform is when the uniform is used in a disrespectful or in a
disdain or abhorrence manner that the respect people had for it
reduces.

It is apposite to state that it is not a violation of our right
to freedom of expression as to express ourselves in the clothes of
our choice. Expression is a particular way of phrasing an idea
which can be done by the way we dress.  Section 39 of
1999 CFRN “Every person shall be entitled to freedom of
expression….” By virtue of Section 45 of the 1999
Constitution places a restriction on Section 39 of
1999 CFRN if such law is reasonably justifiable in a
democratic society in the interest of defence…. The question that
crosses the mind is, the provisions of Section 110, 111 and
251 of the Criminal code which restrict the use of armed
forces uniform, is it reasonably justifiable in a democratic
society and in the interest of defence of national security. I
answer in the affirmative and reasonably believe that the law was
made to reduce security issues which are global problem and reduce
impersonation and accord respect to our national symbols which
includes the use of uniforms. However, a person can bring an action
for violation of his fundamental right to dignity of human person
if he is tortured or subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment
for wearing armed forced uniform.

Where a person is apprehended for being in possession of armed
forces uniform or any part of it thereof, the person is fully
entitled to the procedural due processes provided for in
Section 36 of 1999 Constitution. The armed forces
cannot unilaterally constitute the prosecutor and the judge for
wearing their uniforms and has no jurisdiction to deal with
civilians. If any person contravenes any provision against the use
of the armed forces uniform, such person should be charged to court
and not this unnecessary assault and battery that they mete on
offenders.

In conclusion, it is an offence to wear armed forces uniform or
any part thereof without permission from the president or Governor
or if you are not using it for stage play of for bona fide public
entertainment. Ignorance of the law is not and never an excuse. It
is therefore necessary for the public to respect our laws and
national symbols of authority including the use of uniforms because
it is what distinguishes the military from others. Also, the
intention of the legislatures in enacting this law is not to
restrict your freedom to expression to any dress of your choice but
to avoid impersonation, to protect the country and the need to
respect national symbols. I also suggest that officers that abuse
and bring the armed forces uniform to disrespect by giving it to
their children or fiancée for pre-wedding pictures should be
punished and they will serve as examples to others.

Written by Chidera Nwokeke

Chidera Nwokeke, is a graduate of Law from Ebonyi State
University, a law school candidate. He is academically motivated
and has passion for research in several areas of law. He has a keen
interest in Dispute resolution, Litigation, Human Right and
Corporate Law Practice. He can be reached at [email protected]^[1]  or 08120945787

Subscribe ToNairalaw News!