Ma’aji is standing trial alongside 35 other officers over allegations bordering on mutiny and an alleged plot to overthrow the government of President Bola Tinubu.

In a preliminary objection filed before the court martial in charge number DHQ/GAR/ABJ/49/ADM, he asked the tribunal to strike out all charges against him, arguing that it lacks the legal authority to entertain the case.

The application was filed under Rules 36(1) and 37(1) of the Rules of Procedure Army 1972.

He described the charges as defective and incompetent, insisting that the court-martial has no jurisdiction over the matter.

In his filing, Ma’aji prayed the court to dismiss the case, stating:

“Take notice that the 2nd accused hereby objects to the jurisdiction of the General Court Martial to entertain Counts One to Nine of the charges preferred against the 2nd Accused… and hereby prays the General Court Martial for the following reliefs:

“An order striking out and/or dismissing the charges for lack of jurisdiction…”

He also argued that the complainant listed in the case, the “Armed Forces of Nigeria,” is not a legal entity recognised by law and therefore cannot institute criminal proceedings.

According to him, only natural persons or legally recognised bodies have the capacity to sue or be sued, citing several legal authorities including Green v. Green, Fawehinmi v. NBA, and Mothercat Nig Ltd v. Registered Trustees of the Full Gospel Assembly.

Ma’aji maintained that since the complainant lacks legal personality, the court-martial itself cannot validly assume jurisdiction.

He further challenged counts one to nine of the charges, arguing that they do not properly fall under the offence of mutiny as defined in Section 52(1)(b) of the Armed Forces Act, 2004.

According to him, the allegations relate more to a supposed plot against the Federal Republic of Nigeria rather than offences connected to military discipline or command structure.

He also argued that the phrase “lawful authority in the Federation” cannot be interpreted to include the Federal Government in the context used by the prosecution.

Relying on constitutional provisions and judicial precedents, he insisted that a court-martial is a tribunal of limited jurisdiction and cannot operate beyond what the law permits.

He further cited the Supreme Court decision in Nigerian Navy v. Lambert, arguing that any ambiguity in criminal law must be interpreted in favour of the accused.

Ma’aji also contended that the prosecution failed to establish key elements of mutiny, such as insubordination, refusal of lawful command, or organized rebellion within the military structure.

He therefore urged the court-martial to uphold his objection and dismiss all charges against him.