What’s so Fonny?

Army act 57(1) where a person subject to military law commits any offense and thereafter ceases to be a person subject to military law maybe taken into or kept in military custody and be tried and punished for that offense by court martial.

Provided that he shall not be so tried after the lapse of six months from the date of the commission of such offense unless such offense is the offense of mutiny, desertion or fraudulent enlistment

So unless SF committed mutiny, desertion or fraudulent enlistment, he should have committed these ‘crimes’ he is accused of AFTER THE WAR WAS OVER.

Advertisements
7 comments
  1. Suresh said:

    Well said. Let’s see how this law will be twisted to suit the ruling regime.

  2. The GoSL claims (and it remains to be quoted in law) that all retired military officers are subject to military law upto six months after their date of leaving the Armed Forces. If this is true, he is subject to military law upto April 12th (having retired on November 16th 2009).

    However, being subject to military law does not mean that the said officer is inevitably bound by the uniform code of military conduct. In other words, a retired military officer, while still under military law, cannot break the uniform code of military conduct if he is no longer in uniform. He can however be tried for offenses that contravene the uniform code of military conduct that were committed while he was in uniform, provided that said offenses were committed not more than six months prior to the court martial (excluding mutiny, desertion, and/or fraudulent enlistment, all of which cannot be committed by a retired officer anyway).

    So, under the GoSL’s logic, the only military offenses SF can be tried by court martial for are ones he might have committed between August and November 2009.

    If however, retired military officers are NOT subject to military law after their date of retirement, SF cannot be tried before a court martial, and must be tried as a civilian in public court of crimes that break the laws of the land. The latter often do not cover many military laws. Eg: an officer can be court martialed for insurbordination, but obviously a civilian cannot be.

  3. Sorry, that should read April 16th not 12th in the first para.

  4. magerata said:

    What if SF’s actions were leading to mutiny, desertion among the ranks?
    What ever the case is everyone has forgotten about the country, IDP and the soldiers without limbs because big boys decided to have at it.

  5. Magerata, the charge would then be sedition, guilt of which requires proof of intent.

  6. magerata said:

    Thanks DB.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: