CRIMINAL LAW — Standing Orders — Prohibition of Contact with Foreign Missions — Requirement of Personal Contact
Principle Statement
Where a military standing order prohibits "visits to foreign missions" or "unauthorised visits to foreign missions," the prohibition is directed at the officer's personal visit or personal contact with foreign embassies or missions. To sustain a conviction, the prosecution must strictly establish the accused's personal visit or contact with the foreign mission. Mere proof of contact through a husband or a third party is insufficient.
Ratio Decidendi (Source)
Per Tabai, JSC, in Nigeria Navy & Anor v. Ibe-Lambert (2007) NLC-123-139-2006(SC) at p. 14; Paras A–C.
"The head note of the Standing Order (Exhibit 4) which reads 'Visit to foreign mission' read together with paragraph (1) which speaks of 'unauthorised visits to foreign missions' show clearly that what is sought to be prohibited is the officer's personal visit or contact with foreign embassies/missions and the provision must be strictly so construed. It is therefore my view that to sustain the Accused/Respondent's conviction under the third head of charge, the prosecution had a duty to strictly establish her personal visit or contact with the French Embassy. Mere proof of her contact with the French Embassy either through her husband or a third party would not suffice."
Explanation / Scope
This principle applies the rule of strict construction of penal statutes to military standing orders. The prohibition must be interpreted according to its ordinary meaning. If the order prohibits “personal visit,” the prosecution must prove that the accused personally visited the mission, not merely that she had indirect contact through an intermediary. The state cannot extend the prohibition by implication or analogy; it must prove each element of the offence as strictly defined. This protects military personnel from being convicted for conduct not clearly proscribed.
