The majority of us grew up to discover that it is a ‘’beatable offence’’ for a citizen to wear Camouflage in Nigeria. We were not aware of the legal implication; we just discovered that once you are caught or sighted by a military man, you will be beaten/punished inhumanely.

I have heard and seen of horror tales of how civilians caught wearing a camouflage cap, shirt or pants are made to do the frog jump in public and flogged. The aim of this article is to dissect the law on the issue of civilians wearing military camouflage and the appropriate punishment stipulated by law and also to argue for the expulsion of this Provision from our laws.

The relevant Law is Criminal Code Act Cap C38 Laws of Federation of Nigeria 2004 which is applicable only in the Southern part of Nigeria. The implication of this is that, it is only in Southern Nigeria that wearing of Military camouflage is criminalised.

Section 110 of the Criminal Code Act states;

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

‘‘(1) 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

(2) 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.’’

The legal implication of the above provision is that in subsection 1, the offense is clearly strict in nature. A strict offense is one that the mental state (mens rea) does not need to be proved before the suspect is found guilty, that is; doing the act alone is enough for someone to be found guilty, in subsection 1 above, wearing the said uniform or any type having the appearance is enough to make someone liable.

In subsection 2, a proper and close reading of the phrase “calculated to convey the impression” would show that what that subsection intended to incriminate is “impersonation.” This in my opinion requires that the prosecution must prove this culpable mental state before the suspect can be convicted. It therefore could be concluded that an unaware civilians wearing military camouflage on the street without the intention calculated to convey the impression that they are a member of any military cannot be held liable under subsection 2.

There are however some defense or exception available to the suspect as it is provided for in the same Section 110, the defense is that such person must prove that he had sought and obtain the permission of the President or of the Governor of a State or wear such military garbs. In addition, the person shall not be liable if the military camouflage is worn in the course of a stage play or in any bona fide public entertainment. This explains why you see popular musicians put on Military camouflage to perform on stage without being arrested or ‘‘harassed.’’

Section 111 further incriminates the seller, giver of Military Camouflage to any person who is not authorised to wear the same, the punishment is the same as prescribed in Section 110 stated above.

Section 251 of the Criminal Code also added a further mental state that needs to be proved before a suspect could be held liable. It provided inter alia that any person who not being a member of any Armed Forces who wear the 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 forty naira.

This provision was also re-enacted into Section 110 (1) in Lagos State Law (2011) but with a stricter penalty of 2 years imprisonment with no option of fine. This in my opinion is harsh, wearing Camouflage should not constitute a crime that warranted imprisonment for 2 years whereby the person will have to be fed with tax payers money for such an offense in this modern age.

The offence for wearing camouflage obviously is obsolete by all indications as the fine of ten Naira and forty Naira seemingly make this law laughable. It is pertinent to state here that the section 110 of the Criminal Code Act was inserted in 1967, which was either at the commencement or during Civil War, and the main intent was to distinguish Military Men from Civilians. It is obvious that this Act needs review and this provisions have outlived its purpose.

The reasonable justification for this law is because of security in Nigeria, if civilians are allowed to wear camouflage, the most outrageous of crimes would take place. However, despite this law, we still hear stories of armed robbers dressed as military men to perpetrate several crimes. In addition, considering this line of argument, currently in Nigeria, the security challenges in the Northern part is higher than that of the Southern part, if this provision does not exist in the Penal Code which is applicable in the North, then such provision in the Criminal Code is unnecessary and should be expunged.

A more important issue that must be addressed is the inhumane punishment the military are exerting on civilians found culpable as regards these laws. This is wrong as there is nowhere in the law where such power to be beating people up on the streets is given to them. It is agreed that as at today, civilians could be held liable under the relevant laws stated above, however, the suspect is still entitled to fair hearing and like every other criminal case, the suspect must be subject to the court system, not assaulted on the streets.

Another issue that needs to be addressed is that Nigeria is highly militarised despite the 2 decades of democratic rule, soldiers with AK-47 rifles are still regularly seen on the roads. Civilians are still being assaulted by Military Men for the most trivial of things. The average military man sees himself as better than the average Nigerian and therefore can discipline him or her at any time especially for wearing any part of their uniform.

In most countries (except Antigua, Barbados, Grenada, Jamaica, Nigeria, Oman, Philippines, Saudi Arabia, St Lucia, Trinidad and Tobago, Zambia and Zimbabwe), civilians wearing camouflage is not outlawed because in most of those countries, their military men do not wear camouflage in public. They dress like civilians. For example, it’s only during martial law that you see soldiers on the streets of America. On a normal day, any individual seen wearing camo is believed to be a civilian.

In conclusion, the Nigerian Military Institutions must impact legal knowledge in Military men on the constitutional due process of law, so that they can refrain from taking laws into their hands. In addition, the relevant Sections of the Criminal Code Act should be reviewed and expunge the criminalization of wearing Camouflage by Civilians. In addition, the security challenges in Nigeria need to be addressed and also the Country needs to be demilitarised. That means soldiers should only wear camo in the barracks and should not brandish weapons in public and beat up civilians.