By John Dike, Osogbo
A member of the Osun State House of Assembly, Hon. Kanmi Ajibola, has returned to the Federal High Court, Osogbo, over the failure of the Nigerian military and the Attorney-General of the Federation (AGF) to respond to a suit he filed more than six months ago.
Ajibola, an activist and former chairman of the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA), Ilesa branch, had in October 2025 instituted a suit against the Nigerian Army, Nigerian Air Force, Nigerian Navy, and the AGF over alleged plots to undermine Nigeria’s democratic government.
The suit, marked FHC/OS/CS/210/2025 and filed by Barrister Salihu Aliyu, is before the Federal High Court in Osogbo.
Defendants Yet to Respond
In an affidavit supporting his motion on notice, Ajibola told the court that all defendants were duly served with the originating processes but failed to file any response within the stipulated period, which expired in December 2025.
He expressed concern over what he described as the continued silence of the respondents, arguing that it suggests a lack of defence to the claims.
Ajibola maintained that the Nigerian armed forces, being creations of the Constitution, are bound to operate strictly within its provisions.
“The 4th respondent is the Attorney-General of the Federation and Chief Legal Officer of the Federal Government, created by the 1999 Constitution, with a duty to represent the government in litigation involving its interests,” he stated.
He further argued that in matters relating to the interpretation of the Constitution, the AGF is a necessary party expected to defend the nation’s legal framework.
The lawmaker urged the court to proceed with the hearing of the matter, describing the issues raised as critical to the protection of Nigeria’s democratic institutions.
“The live issue in this suit borders on the security of democratic institutions of Nigeria and requires urgent attention of this Honourable Court,”
.
Ajibola is seeking a declaration that the Nigerian military has no constitutional backing to remove a democratically elected government.
He argued that there is no provision in the 1999 Constitution of Nigeria or the Armed Forces Act that empowers the military to take over governance through a coup d’état.
Citing Section 217(2) of the Constitution, he noted that the functions of the armed forces are clearly defined and do not include interference in civil rule.
The lawmaker also referenced Sections 1(2), 150, and 217 of the Constitution, as well as relevant provisions of the Armed Forces Act, insisting that the military is legally bound to uphold democratic governance.
He is, therefore, asking the court to grant a perpetual injunction restraining the armed forces from forcefully taking over power or engaging in any unconstitutional seizure of government.
The suit also references concerns over alleged attempts to remove elected officials, including President Bola Ahmed Tinubu.
Legal observers say the case could have far-reaching implications for civil-military relations and constitutional interpretation in Nigeria.
As of the time of filing this report, the defendants had yet to file any formal response before the court.
