Dress Code Dispute: Why Lawyers Risk Sanctions at Military Court Martial

The decision to convene a General Court Martial to try 36 military officers accused of plotting a coup against President Bola Tinubu has sparked fresh legal concerns—this time over courtroom dress codes.

In a Convening Order issued on April 23, 2026, Major General A.M. Alechenu outlined how prosecutors and defence counsel should be dressed during proceedings.

According to Item 9(g): “All officers are to wear No 4 dress (or equivalent) while soldiers are to wear No 5 dress (or equivalent) throughout the duration of the court. All civil lawyers are to be robed. However, serving officers who are lawyers have the option of either wearing No 4 (or equivalent) or being robed.”

However, the directive has been criticised for contradicting the Rules of Professional Conduct for Legal Practitioners 2023.

Rule 8(5) states: “An officer in the Armed Forces who is a lawyer may discharge any duties devolving on him as such officer and may appear at a Court Martial as long as he does so in his capacity as an officer and not as a lawyer.”

Rule 45(2) further provides: “A lawyer shall not wear the Barrister’s or Senior Advocate’s robe (a) on any occasion other than in Court except as may be directed or permitted by the Bar Council.”

Legal practitioners warn that compliance with the military directive could expose both defence counsel and military prosecutors to disciplinary action for professional misconduct before the Legal Practitioners Disciplinary Committee.

The development adds another layer of controversy to the already disputed military trial of the accused officers.

Africans Angle News