Paragraph 1: The Case of Flight Lieutenant Akerele and the 15-Year Service Requirement
Flight Lieutenant J.A. Akerele, a pilot officer commissioned in 2013, found himself at odds with the Nigerian Air Force (NAF) over his desire to resign from service. The NAF, citing the Harmonised Terms and Conditions of Service (HTACOS), refused his resignation. This regulation mandated a minimum of 15 years of service before an officer could voluntarily leave. Akerele, feeling his fundamental rights were being violated, challenged this provision in the National Industrial Court in Abuja, initiating a legal battle that would question the very nature of military service obligations. His case, marked NICN/ABJ/25/2025, highlighted the tension between an individual’s right to choose their profession and the military’s need for a stable and committed force.
Paragraph 2: Allegations of Persecution and Career Sabotage
Akerele’s case went beyond the simple refusal of his resignation. He alleged a campaign of “systematic persecution and victimisation” following his application to leave the NAF. His claims painted a picture of deliberate career sabotage, including the abrupt termination of his flight training in the United States, a series of reassignments that effectively stalled his career progression, and the cancellation of crucial training opportunities. These actions, Akerele contended, caused him “severe emotional distress, victimisation, and loss of direction,” ultimately impacting his mental health. He argued that these measures were retaliatory, designed to pressure him into withdrawing his resignation request and continuing his service against his will.
Paragraph 3: The Legal Arguments and Constitutional Concerns
Represented by lawyer Inibehe Effiong, Akerele built his case on the argument that the 15-year service requirement enshrined in HTACOS contravened Section 306 of the Nigerian Constitution, which guarantees fundamental rights. He highlighted existing judicial precedents that affirmed the right of public servants to voluntarily resign, asserting that military personnel should not be excluded from this fundamental right. The core of his argument rested on the principle that compulsory service, beyond what is reasonably required for national security, constitutes a violation of personal liberty and amounts to a form of involuntary servitude.
Paragraph 4: The Court’s Decision: Upholding Fundamental Rights
Justice Emmanuel Subilim, presiding over the case, delivered a landmark judgment that sided with Flight Lieutenant Akerele. Justice Subilim declared the 15-year mandatory service provision in HTACOS to be “oppressive” and a “gross violation” of the fundamental rights guaranteed by the 1999 Constitution. He characterized the NAF’s actions as “modern-day slavery under the guise of national service,” strongly condemning the restriction on an individual’s right to choose their career path. The court’s decision affirmed that members of the Armed Forces, like other citizens, possess the statutory right to resign or retire voluntarily.
Paragraph 5: Validation of Resignation and Injunctive Relief
The court’s ruling had immediate and far-reaching consequences for Akerele and potentially for other military personnel. Justice Subilim declared Akerele’s resignation valid and effective from the date the NAF received his letter, dismissing the NAF’s technical argument that he had applied for “voluntary retirement” rather than “resignation.” The court prioritized substance over form, emphasizing the importance of broadly interpreting the constitutional right to resign. Furthermore, to protect Akerele from further repercussions, the court issued a perpetual injunction restraining the Chief of Air Staff and the NAF from arresting, detaining, or compelling him to continue his service. This injunction provided concrete protection for Akerele against any potential retaliatory actions by the NAF.
Paragraph 6: Implications and Significance of the Ruling
The court’s decision in the Akerele case carries significant implications for the Nigerian military and the balance between national security needs and individual rights. By striking down the 15-year mandatory service provision, the court has affirmed the fundamental right of military personnel to choose their career path. While the military undoubtedly requires a committed and stable workforce, this ruling underscores the importance of respecting individual liberties even within the context of military service. The judgment potentially opens the door for other service members seeking to leave the armed forces before the 15-year mark and could lead to a review of military regulations regarding voluntary resignation and retirement. It establishes a crucial precedent for future cases involving the rights of military personnel and reaffirms the supremacy of the Constitution in protecting those rights.
