A legal battle involving a former senior officer of the Nigerian Army has begun at the National Industrial Court in Abuja, where retired Major General Danjuma Hamisu Ali-Keffi is contesting the circumstances surrounding his compulsory retirement from military service.
The high-stakes lawsuit targets several senior defence institutions and officials, including the Nigerian Army hierarchy, defence authorities, and federal government representatives. The claimant argues that decisions taken against him violated both constitutional safeguards and established military procedures.
Military Authorities Challenge Court’s Jurisdiction
During the latest court session, legal representatives of the Nigerian Army filed their defence alongside preliminary objections. The respondents maintained that the court lacks authority to hear the case, insisting that the retired officer failed to exhaust internal military appeal mechanisms within the legally prescribed timeframe.
According to the defence team, the Armed Forces Act requires aggrieved officers to challenge administrative decisions before the Army Council within 90 days. They argued that the claimant’s failure to pursue this step renders the suit legally invalid.
The court postponed further proceedings until April 30, 2026, when arguments on these objections will be formally examined.
Allegations of Detention and Rights Violations
In his filings, Ali-Keffi described his retirement as unjust and humiliating, claiming it followed an arrest and detention that lasted more than two months. He alleged that throughout that period he was neither formally accused of wrongdoing nor subjected to disciplinary or court-martial proceedings.
The retired general contended that the experience violated fundamental constitutional protections, particularly the right to personal liberty and fair hearing. He further alleged that harsh detention conditions led to serious health complications requiring hospitalization.
Rather than presenting the claims sequentially, the core grievances outlined in his suit include:
- Prolonged detention without formal charges
- Alleged torture and degrading treatment
- Compulsory retirement without due process
- Psychological trauma and reputational damage
Link to Anti-Terror Financing Operations
Ali-Keffi previously headed Operation Service Wide, a multi-agency presidential task force established to track and prosecute financiers of terrorism. He claimed that disagreements surrounding the handling and release of certain suspects contributed to events that ultimately led to his detention and removal from service.
The operation reportedly involved collaboration among military personnel, intelligence agencies, and legal officers tasked with combating financial networks linked to extremist activities.
Following his retirement, the claimant said security fears forced repeated emergency travel abroad with his family due to alleged threats to their safety.
Multi-Billion Naira Compensation Claims
The lawsuit seeks extensive financial redress, combining compensatory and punitive damages. Among the reliefs requested are:
- ₦100 billion as compensation for alleged unlawful detention and rights violations
- Another ₦100 billion in exemplary damages for what he termed oppressive actions
- ₦120 million representing lost earnings he claims would have accrued before statutory retirement age
- Restoration of retirement status to reflect voluntary exit at age 60
- Full payment of pensions, gratuities, and benefits with interest
He also asked the court to nullify the retirement letter issued against him and recognize his service record without disciplinary stigma.
Commentary & Analysis
The case highlights growing legal scrutiny over administrative decisions within Nigeria’s military establishment. While the armed forces operate under specialized laws distinct from civilian institutions, constitutional protections still apply to personnel, particularly concerning detention and disciplinary procedures.
Legal analysts note that disputes involving senior officers rarely reach open court due to the military’s hierarchical structure. As such, this lawsuit may test the extent to which civilian courts can review internal military decisions, especially where allegations of human rights violations are raised.
The Army’s jurisdictional objection suggests the proceedings could hinge less on factual disputes and more on procedural compliance under military law. Should the court assume jurisdiction, the matter could set important precedents regarding accountability, due process, and the rights of retired service members.
Ultimately, the outcome may influence how future conflicts between military authority and individual rights are resolved within Nigeria’s legal framework.
© 2025 Gossip News Now, a division of CHIEJOS HARBIAN DIGITAL MEDIA LTD. Contact us via admin@gossipnewsnow.online
