News
Nigerian armed forces bar personnel from marrying foreigners
By Prosper Olayiwola
The Nigerian Armed Forces have banned military personnel from marrying foreigners and naturalised Nigerians.
According to the Harmonised Terms and Conditions of Service (HTACOS) of the Armed Forces Act 2024, it is also illegal for commissioned officers to marry non-commissioned officers, such as soldiers, ratings, or airwomen.
Service chiefs are under strict orders to implement the new rules.
It reads in part: “This Harmonised Terms and Conditions of Service Officers 2024 has been promulgated to ensure uniform implementation and it supersedes the previous HTACOS Officers 2017.
The contents are to be strictly observed on all occasions and interpreted reasonably and intelligently, with due respect to the interest of the Services, bearing in mind that no attempt has been made to provide for unnecessary and self-evident exceptions. This HTACOS is subject to review after five years.”
Chapter 25 of the new rule deals with marriages for the officers and soldiers of the Armed Forces.
Specifically, Subsection 5 of the document states that “no officer is allowed to marry a foreigner or a naturalised Nigerian.”
The HTACOS document is subject to review after five years.
The 2024 edition of the HTACOS, as approved by the Armed Forces Council, came into effect on December 6, 2024, when it was signed by the President.
According to Chapter 25, Subsection 1, a second lieutenant, midshipman and pilot officer (2Lt/Mid/Plt Offr) is on probation and is expected to live in the Officers’ Mess without a spouse.
Also, he is not allowed to marry, and if he has been married before he went to the Academy, though his records may show this fact, he will not be recognised as a married officer for the purpose of accommodation, pay and other allowances applicable to married officers.
However, Subsection 2 of the same chapter states that “where a soldier/rating/airman is commissioned into any of the Services’ Corps/Branch/Specialty from the ranks as 2Lt/Mid/Plt Officer and the officer was married before commissioning, he will live in the Officers’ Mess for a minimum of three months. Thereafter, he may be given married accommodation if available or lodging allowance in lieu.”
According to the law, before marriage, officers are required to obtain approval from higher authorities and subject their partners to a vetting process.
Chapter 25, Subsection 3-4 states: “Any officer who is not yet married must first seek approval of the appropriate superior authority of his/her intention to marry. An RCC officer shall not be eligible to apply to marry until after five years of commissioning.
The approval shall be granted only after vetting and clearance of the officer’s proposed spouse by the appropriate superior authority.”
“If an officer marries a soldier/rating/airman/airwoman under any of the existing ordinances, the officer or the soldier/rating/airman/airwoman will be given the option to leave the Service from the date of such marriage. Where personnel married to fellow personnel are commissioned, the spouse of the commissioned officer shall be discharged from Service. It is an offence for an officer to conceal his marriage to a soldier/rating/airman/airwoman for the purpose of preventing the officer or the soldier/rating/airman/airwoman from leaving the Service.”
Why It Is So – Ex-General
Meanwhile, a retired major general, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said the rule was intended to prevent soldiers from divulging information to foreign countries through their spouses.
He said there was no way an officer would not, on occasion, discuss job-related issues with their spouse, adding that doing so with a foreign partner could jeopardise the sovereignty of the officer’s country.
He said, “Obviously, the rule is meant for the protection of information and other security-related issues. Imagine a Nigerian soldier married to a Cameroonian or Liberian, and Nigeria goes into war with any of those countries, the general belief is that loyalty could be divided or something like that. If it is generally allowed, it won’t be in the interest of the nation, security-wise.”
Law Should Be Reviewed, Says Retired Group Captain
Group Captain Shehu Sadeeq (Rtd) said that while the condition was rooted in national security, such a clause should be reviewed in line with best practices in advanced countries where vetting is carried out on the intended spouse. He said many militaries across the globe maintain similar laws but do not outright ban them.
He explained that the HTCOS (Harmonised Terms and Conditions of Service) is a document that the military designed itself to regulate how affairs within the military can be conducted, and is different from the Armed Forces Act.
According to him, the outright ban on foreign spouses is meant to prevent a potential security compromise because officers have access to classified information. He added that the provision is rooted in national security considerations and not cultural prejudice. He said marriage to a foreigner could unintentionally create a channel for intelligence leakage.
Secondly, he said the ban relates to citizenship and allegiance, adding that “a spouse’s foreign citizenship can raise questions about dual allegiance, like inheritance rights and residence privileges, in ways that might conflict with Nigeria’s security laws”.
The third reason, according to him, is operational deployment and posting risks. He said officers married to foreigners could face restrictions when posted abroad, particularly when occupying sensitive commands, maybe in intelligence, which complicates personnel management. The final reason he advanced is reciprocity and diplomatic reasons.
According to Shehu, many militaries across the globe maintain similar laws.
He explained, however, that it was not universal but also not unique to Nigeria.
“For example, in the United States, there is no general bar, but officers in certain agencies require security clearance to marry a foreigner. While it is not prohibited completely, vetting of the intended spouse is required.
“In the UK, they do not ban marriage to foreign spouses, but the officer’s access to classified information is restricted until vetting is carried out on the spouse. China, Russia, and several Middle Eastern and African states explicitly prohibit it. India and Pakistan also require approval before marriage,” he said.
“Maybe, looking at what is happening in other parts of the world, I think we can review this law to introduce instruments of vetting before such a marriage is done instead of an outright ban. This rule was enacted during the military regime; the younger generation of officers may consider such conditions an infringement on their rights. I think it is one area that the military might look at, seeing what is happening in other countries,” he added.
However, the rule is not observed in a country like the United States of America, where military officers are generally allowed to marry foreigners.
Online checks reveal that in the US military, officers are permitted to marry foreign nationals, but such officers must obtain a security clearance.
They are expected to report the relationship, and the marriage is considered in security clearance decisions.
Reacting to the Nigerian rule on marriage to foreigners by its military men, the Executive Director, Resource Centre for Human Rights and Civic Education, Dr Zikirullahi Ibrahim, faulted the regulation.
He said such a law should apply only to those in positions of authority, such as the Service Chiefs who have access to sensitive information, and not to just anyone in the military.
He said, “When you say members of the Armed Forces should not marry a foreigner, why are they isolated from other government officials? I ask, what about Nigerians in the Armed Forces who have relocated their families abroad?
These families most times later naturalise in foreign lands. We have seen a number of them. Most of our top military brass, their families have dual citizenship, and so what are we doing about that?”
He further queried why such a law does not apply to the political class.
“What about the politicians? Many of them have dual citizenship. Why do we have to isolate the military; are they not citizens of this country? If we are to talk about sanitising the system, there is no arm of government that should be isolated. You don’t make laws for a particular set of people and another law for a different set of people.
There should be consistency in terms of policymaking so that, at the end of the day, you cannot make laws that cannot be implemented, that won’t be effective.”
He reiterated that only those aspiring to occupy positions of authority should be so restricted.
He said that only those considered for appointments as chiefs in any of the Services should be banned from having a foreign spouse.
He said love and affection shouldn’t be subject to human laws.
“A love relationship is an act of God. We can have a blanket law that says certain positions cannot be occupied by persons with dual citizenship, children or spouse. This would make people more conscious and imbibe a sense of nationality knowing that ‘if I’ve this, I’ll be limited in my career progression.’”
But the executive director of the Civil Society Legislative Advocacy Centre (CISLAC), Auwal Rafsanjani, supported the restriction of marriage for serving military officers.
According to him, such persons hold the nation’s information and should consider national interest in their choice of spouse.
He said, “In my opinion, if you’re holding a sensitive security position, it will definitely be risky to get married or maintain a relationship with someone from another nationality who will probably leak such information.
“So if you decide to be a security person, then you already know the consequences. I don’t think such individuals should be allowed to maintain a relationship that exposes our sensitive information.
“If you decide to be security personnel, even before you join, you already know the sacrifices and privileges involved, so, for me, right from the beginning, people should be aware of those things. They already know certain things that must remain confidential for the sake of the nation.”
…urge parliaments to demand accountability
By Gloria Ikibah
Deputy Speaker of the Nigerian House of Representatives, Rt. Hon. Benjamin Okezie Kalu, has urged the World Trade Organisation (WTO) to break the prolonged deadlock over food security and investment facilitation, warning that delays are weakening confidence in the multilateral trading system.
Kalu made the call on Friday in Geneva, Switzerland, while contributing to the 57th Session of the Steering Committee of the Parliamentary Conference on the WTO (PCWTO), attended by WTO Director-General, Dr Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala, as a special guest.
The session, jointly organised by the Inter-Parliamentary Union (IPU) and the European Parliament, was co-chaired by Hon. Bernd Lange of the European Parliament and IPU Secretary-General, Ms Anda Filip. It brought together parliamentarians from national and regional legislatures, representatives of the European Parliament and IPU, as well as trade policy experts.
The committee reviewed developments in multilateral trade negotiations, follow-up actions from the 14th WTO Ministerial Conference and recommendations from the PCWTO session held in Yaoundé, Cameroon.
The meeting also considered stronger engagement with parliamentary trade committees, increased participation in PCWTO activities, cooperation with business and civil society, and preparations for the 2026–2027 programme.
Kalu acknowledged progress recorded by the WTO on fisheries subsidies and development issues but said the organisation’s credibility would ultimately depend on its ability to deliver tangible outcomes, particularly for developing countries.
He expressed concern that a permanent solution had yet to be reached on public stockholding for food security, 13 years after the commitment made at the 2013 Bali Ministerial Conference.
Nigeria, he noted, had co-sponsored the demand by the African Group, the African, Caribbean and Pacific Group and the G33 for a permanent solution.
He said: “Thirteen years cannot be explained as an ordinary negotiating delay. Behind every delayed outcome are farmers, workers and families living with the consequences of decisions we defer”.
As an interim measure, Kalu proposed that WTO members consider a waiver under Article IX:3 of the Marrakesh Agreement to cover qualifying public stockholding programmes.
He argued that the absence of consensus should not make an explicit treaty mechanism permanently unusable when countries were facing pressing food security needs.
The Deputy Speaker also raised concerns over the Investment Facilitation for Development Agreement, as he said broad support for the agreement had remained stalled by a single formal objection.
He called for greater accountability from national parliaments and proposed that participating legislatures submit reports on concrete actions taken to advance PCWTO and WTO outcomes before each Steering Committee meeting.
“Yaoundé revealed problems that are already well understood. The challenge now is to create political accountability for governments to explain what they are actually doing about them. If credibility is the issue, accountability must be the response.
“I propose that before each Steering Committee meeting, participating parliaments should report on concrete steps taken within their own jurisdictions to advance the outcomes of Yaoundé and MC14, identifying the responsible authority, the action taken, the government’s stated position and the current status.
“Too often, our discussions focus on what Geneva has or has not done. We should devote equal attention to what our own governments and legislatures have done since the last meeting. Accountability must run in both directions.
“We should hold ourselves to the same standard of accountability we ask of Geneva. Nigeria commits to doing so.
“Distinguished colleagues, behind every delayed outcome are farmers, workers and families living with the consequences of decisions we defer.
“The WTO’s credibility is not measured by the sophistication of its rules. It is measured by whether the members who need it most have rational grounds to trust it.
“Nigeria is not here to add to the diagnosis. We are here to help restore that trust”, Kalu said.
He further cautioned that improving attendance at WTO-related meetings alone would not resolve the challenge of parliamentary relevance in global trade governance.
According to him, many legislatures are briefed only after negotiating positions have already been finalised.
Kalu therefore proposed that future PCWTO sessions should be built around focused economic agendas covering contentious issues such as public stockholding, investment facilitation, the e-commerce moratorium and digital trade rules.
He said this would allow parliamentarians to communicate clear conclusions and areas of disagreement to trade ministers ahead of negotiations.
Kalu, who joined the PCWTO Steering Committee in February 2025, also secured a reaffirmation from the IPU Secretary-General of the organisation’s commitment to work with him towards the successful hosting of the PCWTO event scheduled for Abuja in 2027.
He reaffirmed Nigeria’s commitment to a fair, credible and development-oriented international trading system.
Okonjo-Iweala backs deeper parliamentary role
In her address, Okonjo-Iweala presented an update on WTO reforms covering decision-making, development, special and differential treatment, fairness and dispute settlement.
She noted that while consensus was intended to guarantee an equal voice for all WTO members, its application as unanimity had allowed single objections to block outcomes enjoying broad support.
The WTO Director-General urged parliamentarians to move beyond criticism and put forward practical solutions for rebuilding confidence in the organisation.
She identified greater transparency and improved notifications as possible confidence-building measures and invited written submissions from parliamentarians on the reform process.
Okonjo-Iweala also backed deeper engagement between parliamentarians and Geneva-based actors, including national WTO representatives, the Chair of the General Council, reform facilitators and committee chairs.
Such engagement, she said, will give legislators a more direct role in the reform debate while preserving the member-driven character of the WTO.
The WTO chief acknowledged concerns that the multilateral trading system had not served many developing and poorer countries effectively.
She defended the continued relevance of special and differential treatment and called for a more credible framework that takes different levels of development among WTO members into account.
Okonjo-Iweala also underscored the importance of investment facilitation for developing economies and confirmed that restoring an effective two-tier dispute settlement system remained on the reform agenda, even if its eventual design differs from the previous arrangement.
The discussions came amid wider efforts to reform the multilateral trading system. The WTO has recently warned that global trade is at a critical juncture, with geopolitical tensions and disagreements over trade rules placing additional pressure on the organisation.
The All Progressives Congress (APC) Presidential Campaign Council has called on African Democratic Congress (ADC) presidential candidate Atiku Abubakar to withdraw from the 2027 presidential race over a controversial $500,000 payment made to his former wife, Jennifer Douglas, during negotiations surrounding the Mambilla Hydroelectric Power Project.
The demand followed revelations from a final award issued by a three-member International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) arbitration tribunal in Paris in the long-running dispute between Sunrise Power and Transmission Company Limited and the Federal Government.
The tribunal ruled in favour of Nigeria, rejecting Sunrise Power’s claims and ordering the company and its promoter, Leno Adesanya, to reimburse Nigeria for 75 per cent of its legal costs.
At the centre of the controversy is a $500,000 transfer made by Adesanya on January 30, 2003, through China Castle Investments Limited, an offshore company he controlled, into Douglas’s Citibank account in the United States.
The payment came less than four months before Sunrise was purportedly awarded a 3,960-megawatt Build-Operate-Transfer (BOT) contract for the Mambilla project in Taraba State.
Tribunal Questions $500,000 Payment
During the arbitration, Adesanya told the tribunal that the $500,000 was part of a foreign-exchange transaction carried out on behalf of Atiku.
However, the tribunal did not accept the explanation, noting the absence of documentary evidence showing the underlying naira payment, exchange rate, instructions from Atiku or his aides, correspondence relating to the transaction or records establishing its commercial purpose.
The tribunal also noted that neither Atiku nor Douglas testified or submitted witness statements to corroborate Adesanya’s account.
It further questioned the explanation because the payment was made during the period when Sunrise was pursuing the Mambilla project and months before the company was purportedly awarded the contract.
The tribunal’s findings, however, concerned the evidence and claims before it in the arbitration; they did not establish in the award that Atiku personally received a bribe.
Mambilla Contract Controversy
The Mambilla project, initially conceived in 1982 as a 3,050MW hydropower scheme, later became the subject of negotiations involving Sunrise and its Chinese partner.
Sunrise expressed interest in developing the project from 2001 and subsequently submitted proposals to the Federal Government.
A technical committee eventually recommended Sunrise for the 3,960MW project in March 2003.
Former Minister of Power Olu Agunloye later issued a letter which Sunrise relied upon as evidence that it had been awarded the project.
Former President Olusegun Obasanjo, however, maintained that the Federal Executive Council never approved the contract and that he directed the withdrawal of the relevant memorandum.
The disputed letter subsequently became central to Sunrise’s multibillion-dollar arbitration claims against Nigeria.
APC Accuses Atiku of Conflict of Interest
Reacting to the tribunal’s findings, APC Presidential Campaign Council spokesman Dele Alake accused Atiku and Agunloye of working together to facilitate the disputed Sunrise contract.
Alake described the $500,000 payment as an alleged bribe connected to the Mambilla deal and argued that its timing raised questions about a possible conflict of interest involving Atiku, who was vice-president at the time.
The APC spokesman also criticised Atiku for not appearing as a witness before the tribunal, saying his testimony could have helped clarify the circumstances surrounding the payment.
The campaign council subsequently demanded that Atiku withdraw from the 2027 presidential contest.
Long-Running Mambilla Legal Battle
The dispute over the Mambilla project has continued for years.
Sunrise previously pursued billions of dollars in claims against Nigeria, alleging breaches relating to the proposed project.
A surviving miner has alleged that an unidentified substance was sprayed inside a detention cell shortly before several suspected illegal miners began collapsing while in the custody of the Nigeria Security and Civil Defence Corps (NSCDC) in Niger State.
The survivor made the allegation while recounting his experience in detention during a visit to the state by the Minister of Interior, Olubunmi Tunji-Ojo.
According to the miner, detainees were locked inside a cell before an unidentified substance was sprayed into the facility.
He alleged that shortly after the substance was released, some of the detainees began experiencing difficulties before collapsing.
«“They sprayed something inside the cell after locking us in, and people began collapsing,” the survivor reportedly said.»
The allegation comes amid growing scrutiny over the circumstances surrounding the deaths of suspected illegal miners who were detained by security authorities in Niger State.
The survivor did not identify the substance allegedly sprayed inside the cell, nor did he state who allegedly authorised or carried out the action.
He also did not provide details on the number of detainees who were affected or establish whether the alleged spraying directly caused any of the reported deaths.
The NSCDC and other relevant authorities have yet to publicly respond to the specific allegation.
The account is likely to intensify calls for a thorough investigation into the treatment of the detainees and the circumstances surrounding the deaths.
Establishing what happened inside the cell would require further investigation, including determining the identity of the substance allegedly used, who introduced it into the facility and whether there was any link between the incident and the subsequent collapse or deaths of detainees.
WTO: Deputy Speaker Seeks Action on Food Stockpiling, Investment Deal
Just in: APC Demands Atiku Quit 2027 Race Over $500,000 Mambilla Payment
Niger Deaths: Survivor Alleges Substance Was Sprayed in Cell Before Detainees Collapsed
-
News22 hours agoCanada Invites Senior Managers To Apply For Permanent Residence
-
Metro22 hours agoOndo Poisonous Alcohol: Death Toll Increases To 49, Cases Spread To Neighboring Local Govt
-
Metro22 hours agoTragedy Hits OAU: Final-Year Engineering Student Dies In Suspected Suicide At Off-Campus Apartment
-
News22 hours agoFalconets Advance to quarter-finals of FIFA U-20 World Cup
-
Sports21 hours agoCarabao Cup Round of 16 fixtures confirmed [Full List]
-
Opinion20 hours agoWike and the APC Governors’ Nightmare