"Why I Should Be Set Free?": A Discursive-Analytic Study of the Trial of Naval Admirals in Nigeria....

International Journal of Legal English Volume 2 Issue 1 2014

“Why I Should Be Set Free?”: A Discursive-Analytic Study of the Trial of

Naval Admirals in Nigeria

TUNDE OPEIBI

University of Lagos, Nigeria

BIODATA

Tunde Opeibi is Associate Professor, English language and applied linguistics at the University

of Lagos, Nigeria. He is currently a Research Fellow of the Alexander von Humboldt Foundation

at Chemnitz University of Technology, Chemnitz, Germany. His research interest and

publications are in the areas of language and law, political discourse and civic engagement, and

more recently new media discourse analysis. He can be reached at [email protected].

ABSTRACT

This study examines a sub-genre of judicial discourse that has not enjoyed much attention by

scholars. Using the approaches of discourse analysis, it discusses aspects of language use in the

trial of three Nigerian Naval Admirals accused of conspiring to facilitate the disappearance of a

seized ship, ‘MT African Pride’. Insights from relevant works in discourse analysis (e.g. Van

Dijk, 1997; Cook, 1989) and Critical Discourse Analysis (Fairclough & Wodak, 1997) provide

the theoretical framework that underpins the study. Some principles of pragmatics espoused in

the Speech Act Theory (e.g. Austin, 1962; Searle, 1969) equally supply some analytical tool kits

for the explanatory paradigm. The trial sessions were held at the Central Naval Command Base

in Lagos, Nigeria in 2005 and monitored for about three months. The data set was collected

through observatory and documentary methods with additional materials extracted from selected

Nigerian national newspapers. Both the qualitative and quantitative methods have enabled the

study to yield some results that have thrown more light into this special area in discourse


analysis. The study finds that proceedings in military tribunals potentially present discursive

practices that uniquely distinguish them from communicative interactions in conventional civil

courts. It equally provides some fresh insight into the nature of legal proceedings and the

dimensions of argumentation in specialised courtroom discourse in a non-native English legal

jurisdiction.

KEYWORDS

Legal discourse, tribunals, speech act, discursive practices

1. Discourse and Law

It has been observed that virtually everywhere around the globe, language, law and society are

interconnected in a manner that impact social institutions and the citizens. Unarguably, every

democratic society relies on various social institutions to create an enabling environment for

citizens to enjoy their fundamental human rights, liberty and happiness. The law as a tool for

social cohesion derives its supremacy and power from the people’s constitution. Individual and

collective progress is dependent on the respect for the rule of law. The social contract embedded

in the laws of the land also requires citizens to fulfill their own obligations by subscribing to and

accepting the provisions of the laws and the sanctions that may be imposed on erring members.

This view underlies the institutional framework within which the legal institutions

operate and is often regarded as the last hope of the ordinary citizen. That understanding informs

the view that actions affecting the state and citizens and/or conflicts among citizens are often

‘judged in the eyes of the law’. What makes the legal institution particularly unique is the power

conferred on it to apply necessary sanctions on those who err on the side of the law. And the

integrity of the court is assessed on the basis of its independence, fairness and impartiality as

well as its ability to enforce sanctions.

Because the law is no respecter of any individual, when senior military officers are

accused of breaching the law and military codes of conduct, the law must apply the necessary

sanctions. In ensuring that the law is properly interpreted and appropriately applied, language

plays a crucial role in the whole judicial process. As a regulatory and reformative mechanism,

legal instruments are couched and dispensed in regulated words and expressions. Court

proceedings are usually a highly regulated form of discourse that is structured in line with


constitutional requirements where language plays the most prominent role, and its

‘institutionality’ is constructed through the participants’ interaction as they negotiate the

organisational goals (Haworth, 2009).

This study, therefore, addresses the crucial role that language plays in this important

social institution as it helps not only to define the character of the legal discourse but also the

purpose such discourse fulfills in the society. It is against this background that this study

addresses the following issues: (1) What distinguishes military tribunal discourse from

proceedings in conventional court systems; (2) How the discoursal event reflects the ideological

dimensions of the military; and (3) What discursive strategies are adopted by the accused officer

to convince and persuade the judicial panel to discharge and acquit him of all the charges.

In this study, the term ‘military tribunal’ is loosely used to represent the concept

adopted in the Nigerian context whenever military courts are inaugurated to handle cases of

discipline, security breach, misconduct, violation of professional ethics, coup d’état or other

legal-administrative matters involving members of the armed forces. It is in this sense that the

Nigerian Armed Forces Act (AFA) (ff 3.2) refers to the present court-martial. We argue that

military tribunals, as a genre of courtroom discourse, provide a judicial space where the

discursive practices demonstrate some features of specialized courtroom proceedings as well as

institutional discourse. English, the official language in Nigeria, becomes the discursive

instrument for accomplishing the goal of the proceedings, which is, seeking convictions or

acquittal. The analytical procedure discusses both the structural and functional features of the

text. In the following, some important extracts are selected, categorised and discussed to

elucidate the view that the trial is a discursive practice that not only highlights the unique

features of Military Tribunal Discourse (MTD) but also contains some ideological manifestations

in this institutional discourse.

1.1 The Nigerian Judicial Space: Tribunal Discourse as Genre

The dynamic nature of legal discourse is often set forth not only in the nature of the legal

processes in different courts but also in terms of the socio-cultural realities that are imbued into

and reflected through judicial activities in different jurisdictions. Legal discourse offers a

window to explore the interconnectivity between language and law in different judicial cultures

and how that relationship affects individuals and institutions.


As mentioned elsewhere (see Opeibi, forthcoming), the present Nigerian judicial

landscape largely follows the English legal system, itself being a product of colonial legacy. An

example is cited in a particular section of the data: “...In a similar vein, Chapter 9, Section V

Article 0939 of Royal Navy BR II provides as follows:...” The various sources of Nigerian Law

include Nigerian Legislation, the principles of English Law, Customary Law, International Law

and Obligations, and Judicial Precedents. Nigerian Court system exists and operates at both the

federal and state levels with the Supreme Court as the highest to handle both civil and criminal

cases.

The military institution, as a corporate and social entity within the larger Nigerian state

and in line with global practice, has its own disciplinary process with the military tribunals and

courts-martial, assuming the functions of the normal court in civil society. Some scholars (e.g.

Watkins, 1997) observe that military tribunals, also known as military commissions, began as far

back as 1846 during the US-Mexico war and were extensively used during the civil war as well

as in recent times in the wake of terrorist attacks on the US.

Uwakah (1997) attempts a distinction between military tribunal and court martial in Nigeria.

According to him, Military Tribunal is the name given to boards of military officers set up

during periods of martial rule or military government. Courts-martial are authorised by statute

and their procedure and the code that they enforce are prescribed in the articles of war and the

manual for court-martials. Uwakah (1997) further observes that the military tribunal has no

higher origin than an order of a general in the army or the most senior officer within that arm of

the military. The military courts enforce military law within the institution while tribunals are

set up to handle administrative and/or disciplinary matters that deal purely with men and officers

within the military.

Akihihiera (cited in Uwakah, 1997) identifies some special tribunals established in

Nigeria by the military between 1966 and 1999. Among them are: (i) Robbery and Firearms

Tribunal under Decree No.47 of 1970, (ii)Treason and other offences Tribunal under Decree

No.8 of 1976;(iii) Recovery of Public Property Tribunal under Decree No.3 of 1984.

Apart from these tribunals, several other courts-martial have been constituted and are

still being inaugurated from time to time in various military formations in response to

disciplinary challenges that may arise from time to time within the armed forces. Some have

argued that a military tribunal cannot be regarded, in the truest sense, as part of the Nigerian


judicial system. Lord Halsbury and Sir James Fitzjames Steven (quoted in Uwakah 1997 )

respectively assert that “to regard a military tribunal as a court of justice is quite illusory”, and

that “they are not properly speaking courts-martial or courts at all. They are merely committees

formed for the purpose of carrying into execution the discretionary power assumed by

Government....”. Ajibola (1988) aligns with that position when he submits that tribunals are

special adjudicatory or fact-finding bodies set up outside the normal hierarchy of courts (Ajibola,

cited in Uwakah 1997). They are therefore ‘special courts’ in the sense of their ad-hoc or

transient nature.

1.1.1 The Military Tribunal Trial as Discourse

Apart from the crucial role language plays as the communication hub in the interactions, one of

the unique features of discourse in military courtroom is the infusion and projection of

institutional ideology and practices that members of that community recognise and observe.

Some scholars (e.g. Dijk, 2002) believe that most examples of institutional discourse are

ideologically-conditioned. Language users in this setting invest their communicative practice

with values, sets of beliefs, attitudes which they intend using to influence and perhaps

manipulate the other party. Discourse then appears as a representative of a system, a set of

linguistic terms that in themselves reflect the discursive and ideological systems (Dijk, 2002).

Interestingly, power and ideologies in discourse are linked to the integrity and dynamicity of

courtroom talk because as social practice, ‘discourse is also a practical, social and cultural

phenomenon since language user utilizes it to accomplish social acts and participate in social

interaction’ (Santos, 2001). Following van Dijk’s (2001) view, we consider that beliefs and

opinions about ethical issues are revealed in the assumptions and meanings that are expressed in

military discourse through among other things, language choice and discourse strategies adopted

during such trials.

The case in question borders on misconduct and disregard to constituted authorities

which in the military circle carries grave sanctions. The Admirals are accused of disregarding

superior authority of the Nigerian President, the Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces, by

facilitating the release of the Ship, contrary to his instruction to detain the ship arrested for

flouting Nigerian maritime law and sovereignty. In most military settings, the normal

institutional practice and mode of behaviour is to first obey the directive of the Commander-in-


Chief without any query/complaint (i.e. the military slogan: ‘obey the last order’). Any other

steps that any officer wishes to take must follow due process without which serious sanctions

will be applied as in the present case.

Aronson (2010) argues that court specialisation has become a core characteristic of

modern judicial systems. The current trend is evident in various forums of multiple adjudication

available for the dispensation of judicial power: general jurisdiction courts, limited jurisdictions

(professionally specialized) courts, administrative tribunals, ADR mechanisms, and international

forums.

Military Tribunal Trial (MTT) may then be taken as a micro legal procedure within a

macro socio-legal system, a disciplinary mechanism primarily designed to handle cases that

involve military personnel and officers. In setting up a Tribunal based on Military Acts, the

constitution requires the most senior/superior officer to establish procedures for the commission

that would assure an accused a "full and fair trial."

All the tribunal members will be officers in the country’s armed forces. A presiding

officer will be chosen for each commission and must be a military lawyer. The presiding officer

will have the authority to admit or exclude evidence. The officer may also conduct the trial in

closed session if this is necessary to protect classified information, ensure confidentiality or to

ensure the safety of defendants, witnesses, or commission members. Some scholars have

discussed some of the differences between military tribunal and civil courts (e.g. Watkins, 1999).

In Nigeria, the laws convening a court-martial is contained in Armed Forces Decree 105

(as amended), now Armed Forces Act A20 of the Laws of the Federation of Nigeria (AFA A20

LFN) 2001. Clause 133 sub-section (1) states that “Subject to the provisions of sections 128 and

129 of this Act, a court-martial shall be duly constituted if it consists of the President of the

Court-Martial, not less than two other officers and a waiting member.” A more detailed overview

of the differences and similarities between the two court systems presented in Table 1 below

provides some insight into the special nature of the military tribunal.

TABLE 1

Military Tribunal Vs Civil Court: Differences and Similarities

Military Tribunal Civil Court

Membership consists of 5-6 members Presided over by a trained, qualified and


(military officers) headed by a Senior

Military Officer

practicing legal professional/officer known as

Judge/Justice

Members appointed by the President,

Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces(or

his representative) Minister of Defence or the

most Senior Military Officer.

Members are usually appointed by the

Judicial Council in conjunction with the

Ministry of Justice at the Federal level and

Judicial Service Commission at the State

level with the approval of the parliament

It is ad-hoc/specialised in nature and held in

military premises.

It is permanent with conventional courtroom

structures and other paraphernalia of

institutional settings. It is open to the public

It derives its authority from Military Codes

and regulations

It is a social institutional backed with

constitutional provisions as enshrined in the

open access public documents

Military laws, regulations as well as

constitutional provisions are applied

The provisions of the constitutions, laws of

the land, court cases are used during

proceedings

Enforcement of the judgement of Military

Tribunals rest on the Defence Council and

Mr President

Final ruling and pronouncements rest on the

presiding judge/justices

Judgements may or may not be appealed. The

appeal is however not binding on the military

authorities

Process of appeal from lower courts to the

highest court of the land is available and may

be pursued by the appellants.

Military officers/personnel standing trials are

held in military custody or detention

facilities within the barracks or military

formations

Suspects standing trials are kept in

conventional prisons

Bail options for the suspects are not

entertained

Bail options are entertained depending on the

nature of the offence

Hearsay or second-hand testimony is

admissible

Hearsay or second-hand testimony is

prohibited

Evidence, including previous trial testimony Evidence, including previous trial testimony


and written statements, will be admissible if

it tends to prove or disprove the case at hand

and written statements, will be admissible if

it tends to prove or disprove the case at hand

The exclusionary rule, which keeps illegally

seized evidence out of a civilian criminal

trial, does not apply

It applies here

Unanimous verdicts are not required in

military commissions but must only be

unanimous in capital cases

Civilian verdicts must be unanimous in

capital cases but at least two-thirds required

to convict in all other cases

There is a process of "reviews" of a verdict

by a three-member panel selected by the

Convener. No verdict will be final until

approved by the president or the secretary of

defense as the case may be

Judge’s pronouncement is final except when

appealed against

Picture 1: The 3 Naval

Admirals during one of

the Tribunal sessions

(Source: The Guardian Thursday, December 30, 2004:9)

The picture of the three accused officers standing before the panel during the actual trial


session forms an integral part of the text (trial). As a discourse strategy, the photograph functions

as a discourse-authentication device. It demonstrates a naturally-occurring communicative event,

contextually-situated in a highly institutionalised setting. With the photograph showing the

accused in full military wear, it also symbolically represents the military institution and

revalidates the authenticity of the special court discourse being described in this study.

Semiotically, it provides a visual re-enforcement for the actuality of the description and

discussion of this special court process as a social and linguistic event.

If the view of discourse as social practice aimed at promoting social works is anything to

go by, this trial fits perfectly into the view that interactions that occur in courts are designed to

accomplish institutional as well as social goals (see Santos, op cit). The construction,

interpretation and use of language within this legal context has been shown to have implications

not only for the Tribunal, but also for the Military authorities as well as the accused officers.

Within the context of the discourse professional, ethical and legal issues raised during the trial

demonstrates a strong awareness of the social implications of the suit.

2. Theoretical Considerations: Aspects of Power and Ideologies in Tribunal Discourse

Following the views espoused in van Dijk (1997), Schiffrin (1985, 1994) and Opeibi

(2004), we consider discourse to be a social process and action with the interaction skewed

towards accomplishing social goals. van Dijk (1997: 5) argues that as social action, discourse

falls under the hierarchies of action, whereby a language user “accomplishes acts as making

assertions and accusations, replying to questions, defending ourselves, being polite, or engaging

in strategies of positive self-presentation”. Schiffrin (1994: 415), in taking a similar position,

points out that the activity most pertinent to our understanding of discourse is interactive activity;

it is an activity that is directed to another person and has a potential for affecting that other

person.

According to van Dijk (2001: 32), Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) is “a type of

discourse analytic research that primarily studies the way social power abuse, dominance, and

inequality are enacted; reproduced and restricted by text and talk in the social and political

context”. van Dijk (2002:208) sees ideologies as the basis of the social representations of groups

where the notion of social representation is broader than that used by Moscovici and his

followers (see e.g., Farr & Moscovici, 1984), namely any kind of socially shared mental

representation. We take the notion of ideology to reflect not only social representation but also


institutional sets of practices that distinguish one group from another. Using insights from the

Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) which focuses primarily on the question of power and the

role of language in its enactment in social life, we see the court is a domain for the production

and circulation of social meanings as well as an avenue where power is exercised in discourse to

achieve a given meaning. A powerful participant like the court president wields some power that

exerts influences on the other (less powerful) participants. This is demonstrated in several

instances during the trial.

The military, as a social institution, has its own culture, sets of beliefs, and patterns of

behaviour that often project into public discourses involving members of that community. These

ideological positions that are peculiar to military establishments manifest constantly in the

discursive engagements during the trials. The dynamism and integrity of the proceedings in

military tribunals are constrained by these institutionalised cultures. The active participants in

this discursive event recognise the existence of such ethics and regard them as sacrosanct.

The basic assumption here is that the military courtroom activities function to address

some specific social problems (disciplinary, regulatory, procedural, institutional, and ethical

among others). Besides, the trial also projects power in various forms and dimensions while

revealing that the power dynamics evident in proceedings ensue largely from the patterns and

choice of language use.

As in most adversarial legal cultures, the nature of power in military tribunals is also

asymmetric. Members of the panel, as powerful participants, dominate and control linguistic

negotiations during the trial. In the context of this study, discursive power is particularly tilted

towards the president of the court who has the larger percentage of the speaking turns. Equally,

his pronouncements such as March in the accused at the commencement of every proceeding and

his firm control of the proceedings and power to allocate speaking roles, not only index a

military tradition but also demonstrate exercise of power and authority by a powerful participant

in a courtroom setting. The hierarchical social stratification in a normal regimented military

setting sometimes intrudes into the proceedings. In some jurisdictions, the rank and file of the

military in particular are often made to believe that they do not have a voice of their own; they

cannot challenge the established authority; they are to ‘obey the last order’ even when the

superior officer err in administrative procedures or in law. The reconstruction of these

ideological and discursive practices becomes more obvious in this type of legal suits. This study


also observes some non-linguistic military cultures that also reveal reproduction and enactment

of power during the trial.

The power dynamics and negotiations in the courtroom are demonstrated in the

deliberate structuring, organization and management and sometimes manipulation of

communication resources by the active participants especially those who wield institutional

authority ( Fairclough & Wodak, op cit.).

Power is defined in terms of the control exercised by one group or organisation or its

members over the actions or the minds of the members of another group, thus limiting

the freedom or action of others, or influencing their knowledge, attitudes or ideologies

(Fairclough & Wodak, 1997: 256)

O’Barr (1984:260) observes that the courtroom is an arena of power struggle and

language is the main tool of this struggle. Shi (2011) supports that view by submitting that

participants seek to take advantage of that power play to achieve their personal goals and obtain

their claimed power by appraising the words they choose and use, the behaviours they put up as

well as that of others, related things, events and phenomena with various language resources.

Power is viewed here as the deployment of language resources to influence, control and

exercise authority through subtle information management in the courtroom. Power relations and

discourse acts are thus intertwining products of legal communication in most judicial discourse.

The military tribunals also show that language constitutes a major instrument for the enactment

of power since language is a source of power and a means through which the court exerts power

and control (van Dijk, 1988).

This view on Institution Legal Fact (ILT) confirms the interplay of socially existent

norms and observable features of social life which undergird the ideological undertone in the

trial. In his own version of ILT, Ruiter (1993) extends these observable features of social life

with another dichotomy: the observable patterns of social conduct, as an expression of

indiscernible common belief. It thus confirms the view that certain legal state of affairs functions

as an intermediary between other (legal) state of affairs, according to MacCormick and

Weinberger (1986) in their concept of Institution Legal Fact (ILT) ( Hage et al in Opeibi, 2008b).

Since the trial case carries with it the appropriate consequences, the view of law as

institutional fact asserts that the legal consequences for a case are the result of the case facts on

the one hand, and the rules of law, on the other hand. If the facts fulfill the conditions of one or


more rules, these rules attach particular legal consequences to the case. The consequences are

new facts about the case (e.g., that it is a case of conspiracy or negligence of duty). The existence

of the new facts emanating from the trial depends on the rules that were applied to the case. They

were, so to speak, 'constituted' by the rules. These rule-based facts are also called 'institutional

facts' (Opeibi, 2008b).

If court trials are also communicative acts that accomplish institutional and social

actions, the speech act theory lends itself to the view of linguistic transactions in legal discourse

as affecting an existing state of affairs. As mentioned earlier, Ruiter’s model of Institutional

Legal Facts elaborate the effect of an utterance on a state of affairs especially when it occurs. In

probing further into the effect of the utterances by legal experts in courtroom setting, both

Austinian and Searlean’s illocutionary act encodes the view that language use effects certain

kinds of changes in the state of affairs. Traditionally, speech act theory establishes the

relationships between utterances and actions in any piece of discourse. In previous studies (e.g.

Opeibi, 2003; Santos, 2004), it has been used successfully in analysing court trials to

demonstrate how legal pronouncements transmute into real consequences in the physical world

of the discourse. Instances of the enactment of such acts are found and documented in this study.

2.1 Discourse as Action: Aspects of the Speech Act Theory

Austin’s (1962) Speech Act Theory has become very useful in analysing text and talk because it

offers the insight on how discourse can be viewed as action (van Dijk 1997). Since discourse

analysis focuses primarily on how language performs functions in human society, it conflates

with the perspective in speech act theory that when we write or speak, we are performing action

through our utterances. Some scholars have observed that although speech act was not first

developed as a means of analyzing discourse, its fundamental insights on how meaning and

action are related to language provides tools that help discourse analysts explain how a piece of

discourse performs actions (Schiffrin, 1994; Opeibi, forthcoming).

2.1.1 Cohesive Devices as Discourse Strategy

When Stubbs (1983) offers a description of discourse analysis as the linguistic analysis of

naturally connected spoken or written texts, he suggests the importance of some lexico-

grammatical elements such as reference, conjunctions, and substitutions in helping readers or


listeners understand any piece of texts. These cohesive devices enable us to understand how

stretches of language, considered in their full textual, social and psychological contexts become

meaningful and unified for their users (Cook, 1989).

A typical court session which contains an extended stretch of language exhibits

properties which reflect its careful choice of words, proper organization and how parts of the

sentences connect and communicate meaning. Prideaux (1997:2) observes that cohesion or

cohesive devices are used to order parts of a text, establish causal links, sustain topic continuity,

determines relations among discourse entities, and establish bridges between distinct parts of a

discourse. Halliday and Hasan (1976) have earlier proposed that the concept of cohesion is a

semantic one; it refers to relations of meaning that exist within the text, and that define the text.

As a relational concept, cohesion then works within the text to enhance meaning-making process

which enhances the interpretive capacity of the discourse (Opeibi, 2008b: 170). Cohesion is thus

the linguistic means by which a text functions as a single unit and demonstrates how actual texts

are unified lexically and grammatically (Osisanwo, 2003: 31). Lexical cohesion may be realised

through repetition, superordinate, synonym or near synonym while grammatical cohesion is

expressed through devices such as reference, substitution, ellipsis and conjunction (Halliday and

Hasan, 1976). This study has shown that some of these cohesive devices play a crucial role in

helping the accused officer present his case persuasively and meaningfully in seeking acquittal.

3. Background to Data Analysis: Facts of the Case

This court-martial is made up of the president of the court and six other members, who are all

military officers. The General Court Martial (GCM) was inaugurated on October 27, 2004 by a

convening order dated October 14, 2004, which was signed by the Chief of Naval Staff (CNS),

Vice Admiral Samuel Olajide Afolayan. The military court tried the senior officers over the 16-

count charge brought against them based on the disappearance or unauthorised release of a ship

‘African Pride’ arrested for illegal maritime activities on the Nigerian territorial waters. After

about two months, the final judgement was delivered on January 5, 2005 where the third accused

person, Rear Admiral Anthonio Bob-Manuel, was discharged and acquitted of the offences

brought against him. The other two officers, Rear Admirals Francis Agbiti and Samuel

Kolawole, were, however, found guilty and consequently dismissed from the force. The Judge

Advocate (a qualified legal military officer) who served as the secretary cum prosecutor was


Colonel John Audu while the lead prosecutor was Brigadier General Idada Ikpomwen(rtd) (see

Guardian, January 6, 2005 for details). As stated earlier, the analytic procedures consider the

discourse strategies adopted by the defence lawyer to Rear Admiral Bob-Manuel who argues

convincingly that the accused officer must be set free. Both the linguistic and discourse

properties of the text are carefully designed and deployed to communicate the intention of the

defendant to accomplish the goal of securing the acquittal of his client.

3.1 Findings and Discussion

In every legal culture, court trials primarily seek to uphold the integrity of the legal

establishment by ensuring that courtroom proceedings lead to the discovery of the truth about the

case. Legal reasoning leads to modes of resolution. This is why the institutionalised procedure

for constructing discourse is designed to create the awareness among litigants about the far

reaching socio-political and psychological implication of the proceedings and the eventual

outcome. In Austinian’s Speech Act’s perspective, it is language use that can alter a ‘state of

affairs’.

From an analytical standpoint, the linguistic and discoursal properties in the text provide

sufficient evidence of an actual legal text originating from a specific legal system based on a

specialised sub-genre of courtroom interaction. The textual analysis shows that the submission is

a highly compact legal address loaded with legal arguments with features that clearly set it forth

as a legal defence. At the lexico-syntactic level, for instance, linguistic elements that are used

and deployed are carefully chosen and presented in order to prove the innocence of the accused

officer. Cases are cited to buttress the argument of the defence counsel and pick holes in the

presentation of the prosecution officer and his witnesses. Some of the unique discourse features

of the proceedings especially the use of specially selected legal terms and material are presented

below.

3.1.2 Lexico-Syntactic Features

It is noteworthy that some lexico-syntactic features form part of the discourse strategies adopted

by the accused officer to communicate his intention of pleading not guilty. They also help to

characterise the text as a legal discourse within a military setting.


Use of Legalese

Courtroom texts usually contain legal words and expressions that are technical. Legal

experts rely on such ‘legalese’ to support their evidence and convince the jury of their adequate

knowledge of what material to be presented and how it should be presented in their arguments.

This high profile trial, expectedly, contains many technical terms used by the legal expert to

provide sound arguments for proving the innocence of the accused officer beyond reasonable

doubt. Many of these expressions not only confirm the setting as reflecting legal contestations

they also reveal the nature of the suit as a criminal case.

Examples include:

(1) “The accused officer is charged with a four count charge as adumberated in the

charge sheet for the offences of:

(2) Conspiracy to commit felony..., conduct to the prejudice of service discipline...,

negligent performance of military duty...,

(3) Count 1, Count 2, Count 3, Count 4

(4) From the submission made by the prosecution......

(5) The beauty of the Nigerian legal system and indeed one of the hallmarks of our

criminal jurisprudence is that an accused person is presumed innocent of any

offence charged until his guilt is proved beyond reasonable doubt...

(6) It is trite that the elements of the offence of conspiracy...

As demonstrated in these extracts, professional and highly technical terms are used.

Words and expressions such as accused, charge sheets, adumberated, prosecution, offence

charged, accused person, presumed innocent, guilt is proved beyond reasonable doubt, negligent

performance of military duty, and commit felony classify the discourse as a criminal case within a

military institution and demonstrate an attempt by the defendant to prove his innocence. It is

noteworthy that these words carry some significant impact and meaning within the context of the

trial. The ‘Charge sheet’, for instance, contains the four major offences for which the officers are

standing trial. The offences are read to the officers at the opening of the trial and that guide their

lines of defence and dictate the evidence they are required to submit to prove their innocence.

‘Guilt is proved beyond reasonable doubt’ (5) appears to be the most defining feature in the

defendant’s arguments during a criminal trial. The defendant is expected to present sufficient and


almost fool proof arguments and evidence that will convince the panel/jury that he is not guilty

of the charges. Through the careful choice of words and expressions, these lexico-grammatical

features therefore contextualise the discourse within the judicial space as a criminal case and a

defendant’s argument for acquittal.

Abbreviations

Military settings are known to be obsessed with the use of abbreviations. It is believed that

abbreviations promote confidentiality and secrecy necessary in such establishments. In the texts,

(7) FOC West- means Flag Officer Commanding Western Naval Command, CTOP- Chief

of Training and Operations; CNS- Chief of Naval Staff; CINTO- Command Intelligence Officer ,

NHQ-Naval Headquarters; CO NNS-Commanding Officer Nigeria Naval Ship

Interestingly, there are also instances of abbreviated linguistic items referring to some legal

documents or instruments. For instance:

(8) AFA- Armed Forces Act; LFN-Laws of the Federation of Nigeria; NWLR- Nigerian

Weekly Law Report; CFRN- Constitution of the Federation of Nigeria;

Other abbreviated items are:

(9) R/Adm- Rear Admiral; Capt.-Captain; LT- Lieutenant; Exh- Exhibit; NAF- Nigerian

Air Force; CA- Court of Appeal; ORS- Others; NNPC-Nigerian National Petroleum Corporation

The military is known for the use of abbreviations in their day-to-day administrative and

interactional activities. In virtually every arm of the military, abbreviated words, names and

expressions are found in their spoken or written communication. It is believed that abbreviations

enable the institution to promote confidentiality in information sharing and communication;

protect it from security breach, shield the system from being compromised by enemies or

outsiders, and forms part of the institutional discoursal practice. The use of abbreviations in this

text further helps to properly contextualise the discourse as legal and military-based. It also

reflects a carefully-worded and intellectually-sound defence by a senior legal expert with

sufficient experience in military matters.

Repetition

Lexical repetition in legal texts used in courtroom proceedings has been a common discourse

feature. Legal experts argue that repeating some words, phrases or expressions has been part of


legal argumentation. Repetition, it is believed, helps to avoid ambiguity in evidence being

presented, reemphasise points of arguments, and add to the weight of argumentation during

proceedings. Court cases require overwhelming evidence to support presentations. In the address

used as data, the following lexical items and legal concepts are repeated:

(10) Accused, AFA (Armed Forces Act), Count, offence, conspiracy, service law,

negligence of duty, conspiracy, prejudice of service discipline, I submit that,

‘MT African Pride’ , Exhibits, CNS (Chief of Naval Staff), R/Adm Bob-Manuel,

R/Adm Agbiti, NWLR (Nigerian Weekly Law Report), CTOP (Chief of Training

& Operations), FOC (Flag Officer Commanding), LFN (Laws of the Federation

of Nigeria)

The repetition of these specially-chosen words demonstrates the uniqueness of the

tribunal discourse. The repetition of words such as count, offence, conspiracy, exhibits, and MT

African Pride highlights the locus of the trial. Names of relevant personalities and documents

(e.g. CNS, CTOP, FOC, LFN) involved in helping the defendant proof his innocence are also

repeated.

Use of Synonym/Near Synonym

Legal trials are also known to contain words and expressions that have the same meaning or are

near synonyms. Legal experts believe this is necessary to also promote clarity and

comprehensibility of legal expressions, present comprehensive arguments, and support the

persuasive thrust in the defendant’s case during the trial. These words that have sameness in

meaning as shown below also add some emotional dimension to the argument.

(11) I submit that in view of the above provisions of AFA, this court is urged to

discharge and acquit the accused senior officer of count 2

(12) It involves a complex concept of duty, breach and damage thereby suffered by the

person to whom the duty was owed....

(13) Which better way can a reasonable person exercise care and caution with a thing

kept in his custody?

Other Lexical Features


Courtroom texts usually exhibit conventional features of legal communication. Apart from

examples discussed above, discursive practices during actual proceedings, especially in the final

address to the court as in this case will highlight well-crafted and sufficient lexical items to

support the evidence and prove the innocence of the accused.

The lexical density of the text thus expresses the seriousness of the discourse and high

level argumentation in the submission. The address has about 2,304 words. Legal terms appear

337 times (e.g., accused, 30 times, prosecution, 13 times, conspiracy, 7 times, exhibits, 5 times,

evidence, 15 times, court/honourable court, 19, submissions/submit, 15 times, guilty, 8 times,

order, 10 times, negligence, 6 times, among others). Military terms occur 112 times; words

referring to Navy 44 times, and the subject of litigation (MT African Pride) 10 times. Other

lexico-grammatical items that make the text cohesive and contribute to the communicative

strategies include determiners (250 times), pronominals (191 times), prepositions (333 times),

and Conjunctions (151 times). The lexical density is illustrative of the nature of arguments in a

typical criminal case where the burden of proof is on the accused to prove his innocence beyond

any reasonable doubt. Legal discourse is generally known for being wordy and verbose. Scholars

(e.g. Tiersma, 1993, Opeibi, 2008b) believe that this has become necessary to achieve precision

of meaning, detailed narrative of facts and events leading to the suit and submission of sufficient

facts and evidence to enable the judge/panel take informed decision which will not lead to

miscarriage of justice.

3.1.3 Discursive Features

As observed in Wagner and Cheng (2011) that ‘legal discourse is an essential tool in

implementing and applying the law’, the discursive properties in the text demonstrate how the

defence counsel employs the tools of discourse to apply the law in favour of his client. Although

power is asymmetric in this legal setting, a close study of the address shows that language use is

structured here in a subtle way to exercise control. The power relation here favours the legal

professional who has the floor during the presentation. In the first place, the address allows the

defence counsel to control the discourse and secondly to use language in a way to exploit the

ideological dimension in military setting by citing relevant authoritative military codes to punch


holes in the submission earlier made by the prosecution. For example, the excerpt below

illustrates this point:

I wish to invite the court’s attention to the uncontroverted evidence of R/Adm Bob-

Manuel where he stated that after the arrest of MT African Pride he communicated the

development to the NHQ whereupon the CTOP (R/Adm Agbiti) sent him a signal

directing him to release the vessel because it had authorisation/approval to operate

within the Lagos area. Particular reference should be made to be made to his reaction to

the signal from CTOP. According to R/Adm Bob-Manuel, he called the CTOP on

telephone to inform him that the vessel was not arrested in the Lagos area but off

Forcados River. It was after his telephone call that the CTOP sent another signal

cancelling the initial signal Exhibit A.

It is obvious that the counsel has his line of argument well planned before the actual

discourse presentation (Luchjenbroers, 1992). Relying on several cases cited in the address and

other legal provisions under military and constitutional codes, the defence counsel argues

persuasively against and nullify the four count charge (as used in the charge sheet) brought

against this accused officer [Rear Admiral Bob-Manuel]. He uses language here for the benefit

of the accused. The textural components of the address contribute to the overall resources for

presenting sound legal reasoning with the aim of establishing the innocence of the accused.

Cohesive resources deployed in the text include, reference, repetition, conjunction, and

substitution.

Reference

As a piece of discourse, meaning is achieved in the text through the use of referential items

that help to hold different parts of the text to make it whole. Anaphora plays a significant role in

linking elements in the text.

(14) “As a matter of fact, the said accused officer gave evidence on oath that he was

offered the sum of $100,000 for the release of the vessel and he outrightly rejected it and

informed the CNS of the said offer. His evidence on this fact was corroborated by Cdr.

Ikoli the Command Intelligence Officer (CINTO) whom he directed to transmit the offer by

text messages to the CNS” .


(15) I wish to invite the court’s attention to the uncontroverted evidence of R/Adm Bob-

Manuel where he stated that after the arrest of MT African Pride, he communicated

the development to the NHQ, whereupon the CTOP (R/Adm Agbiti) sent him a

signal directing him to release the vessel because it had authorisation/approval to

operate within the Lagos area. Particular reference should be made to his reaction to

the signal from CTOP. According to R/Adm Bob-Manuel, he called the CTOP on

telephone to inform him that the vessel was not arrested in the Lagos area but off

Forcados river. It was after his telephone call that the CTOP sent another signal

cancelling the initial signal Exhibit ‘A’.

(16) I submit that the accused officer obeyed all the orders communicated to him. The

prosecution has not been able to establish that the accused officer disobeyed any of

the orders from NHQ.

(17) I submit that it is our law that once official act has been shown to be done in a

substantially regular manner, it is presumed that formal requisites for its validity

were complied with.

The 3rd person pronoun he refers back to ‘the accused officer’ while it refers back to

$100,000. Pronominal lexical items such as Prosecution witnesses referred to in paragraph 7 of

the text are exophoric elements, though not present in this discourse are well known to all the

major participants. In extracts 12 and 13 above, the defence counsel argues persuasively that the

accused officer complies with all the orders given to him and thus must be set free. The

pronominal him functions as anaphora for the accused officer while its refers back to official act

(13). Both of these instances buttress the argument for acquittal while the extracts again confirm

the ideological base underlining the institutional procedures.

Conjunction

As a cohesive device that helps to create and connect meanings within and across the text,

conjunctive elements provide the discourse resources that help the accused communicate his

message in a sensible and convincing manner. Examples include the use of additives (and, or),

adversatives (but), causal (because, so):

(18) From the submission made by the prosecution in its closing address and all the


exhibits tendered, I humbly submit that the prosecution has woefully failed to prove its

case or establish all ingredients or elements of the charges against the accused senior

officer (emphases added)

(19) I submit that while there is no evidence or facts to support elements (i) and (iii)

above, the most vital element which is the agreement of minds by the accused persons has

not been provided in any way by the prosecution.

(20) I submit that to sustain a conviction on this count before this honourable court,

all the elements/ ingredients of the offence must be proved beyond reasonable doubt by

credible evidence before the court. Section 138 FA. This is because under Section

36(5) of our constitution, the accused is presumed to be innocent (emphases

added).

(21) The order in Exh. D was also very clear and unambiguous because it states that

three organisations were to take different actions (emphases added).

Substitution

As a resource that shows a relation on the lexico-grammatical level, some lexical items are

used to replace another in the text in order to achieve clarity and re-emphasise the important

point the defendant wishes to highlight.

(22) “As a matter of fact, the said accused officer gave evidence on oath that he was

offered the sum of $100,000 for the release of the vessel and he outrightly

rejected it and informed the CNS of the said offer (emphases added).

Although these cohesive devices may not be said to be genre-specific, they provide important

discourse tools for linking important information as well as creating and communicating

meaning in the whole text. In fact, they help to highlight important information, documents,

discourse participants relevant to resolving the conflict leading to the trial. They also help the

defence counsel make references to issues that support his plea for acquittal on behalf of this

accused officer who believes he must be set free given his roles and compliance with the superior

orders.

3.2 The Text as Discourse Acts


Wodak (2008) suggests that social action appears to be the major outcome of discourse. Her

observation echoes the earlier positions in Austin’s and Searle’s works on speech acts (1962,

1969; Vanderveken 1990:56) where utterances that depend on social situations for their

successful enactment are called ‘declaratives’. “To perform them, the agent must publicly

address others by using language according to certain rules in certain social situations. Moreover

he must have the required status in the social institution concerned (Melo 2002:114)”. The

courtroom is a typical social domain where utterances that contain illocutionary force are

deployed to accomplish social and communicative acts. These are illocutionary acts that actually

perform the said acts. Davis(2001:136-137) argue that illocutionary acts that perform the acts

uttered by the speaker should be seen as intentional acts. The content of what a speaker believes

must be the content of what the speaker expresses. Such illocutionary acts are the actual

utterance acts. For example, when the presiding judge says: “I order the suspects to be remanded

in prison custody…”, this acts as the actual desire of the presiding judge. And the utterance

impacts the immediate discourse situation with the suspects taken away to the detention facility.

One can therefore agree with Wodak (op.cit) that utterances that are made within the

courtroom lead to some discourse outcomes, considering the fact that courtroom texts contain

communicative acts that are enacted within the context of that discourse. As demonstrated

above, what is more significant is the immediacy of the outcomes of some of the utterances

especially those coming from the presiding judge.

As observed elsewhere (Opeibi, 2003) an important aspect of the character of the

discourse in the courtroom is that it also fixes the supposed or imposed efficacy of the words

(i.e. the illocutionary force) and their effects (perlocutionary act) on those to whom they are

addressed and the limits of their constraining.

As shown in the data set, the submission made by the defendant through his counsel,

who argues that he should be set free, contain some illocutionary acts that are intentionally

deployed to prove his innocence and plead for his acquittal. “Each Illocutionary act token is then

one and the same as an utterance act token (Davis, 137)”. They express his desire to be set free

from all the charges brought against him. The examples below illustrate this observation.

(22) From the submission made by the prosecution in its closing address and all

the exhibits tendered, I humbly submit that the prosecution has woefully


failed to prove its case or establish all allegations or elements of the charges

against the accused senior officer(SA)

(23) I submit that while there is evidence or facts to support elements (i) and (iii)

above, the most vital element which is the agreement of minds by the accused

persons has not been proved in any way by the prosecution

(24) I humbly rely on the case of Dabo and Anor Vs the State (1994) 5 NWLR (pt

346) 535 and P. Njovenas and Ors Vs the State (1973) NSCC 257 where the

courts held that for conspiracy to be established there must be a common

criminal design or agreement by two or more persons to do or omit to do an

act criminally.

(25) I submit that the prosecution has not been able to establish that the accused is

guilty of a conduct which demean the military custom in any manner

whatsoever…

(26) I submit that all the evidence proferred by the prosecution can at best be

called circumstantial evidence in Amusa vs State (2002) 2 NWLR (pt 750) 73

at 93 it was held that circumstantial evidence must be cogent, positive,

unequivocal and points irresistibly to no other conclusion than the guilt of the

accused persons

(27) I submit that from these chains of events between CTOP and FOC West, it

will be most improbable to presume that the FOC West (Bob-Manuel)

(28) In this vein, I commend to this honourable court the decision of Court of

Appeal in Col. T. Gani v. The Nigerian Army Suit No. CA/L/276/98

delivered on February 7, 2001 where the court held that an accused cannot be

found guilty of an offence under Section 62(b) of the AFA for general acts

smirking of incompetence or lack of administrative ability…

(29) I urge the court to hold that Mr Ajiboye is not a witness of truth. His

demeanour on the calculation of figures before this court is a confirmation of

this assertion.


(30) In LT A. I Bakoshi & ORS vs Chief of Naval Staff(2004) 15 NWLR(Pt 896)

268 & 294 - where a prosecution gave two conflicting figures of the quantity

of stolen product, the Court of Appeal held that it is not possible to hold

that the evidence of the prosecution is overwhelming (N.B. becomes

perlocutionary in this context).

If speech acts are communicative acts that express the intention conveyed through

words in the discourse, the examples above potentially constitute instances of such acts. The

defence counsel deliberately crafts those words to convey his intentions of nullifying the

accusations against his client by presenting facts that support his position. Performative verbs

such as submit, urge, commend, and rely clearly convey these intentions. For instance, in

Examples 19, 20, 22 and 23 above, among others, the accused officer cites both legal and

administrative authorities as well as relevant previous cases to provide quantum of evidence

(from the witnesses and documents), which he ‘submits’ to argue for the nullification of all the

charges and his consequent acquittal. The performative verbs carry the appropriate illocutionary

force which translates into actual enactment of the action (Austin, 1962; Searle, 1991, Searle and

Van der Verken, 1985). The illocutionary force, that is, the intended function of these utterances

aims to achieve the purpose of securing the acquittal of the accused officer. These examples

may also be described as ‘prescriptive speech acts’ (Irizarry, 1995) as they express what the

counsel recommends to the tribunal for necessary action in favour of the defendant, Rear

Admiral Bob-Manuel. Obviously, the felicity conditions of the utterances have been fulfilled as

they are produced by the competent legal counsel, in the appropriate setting before the

appropriate body relying on the order that sets up the tribunal as a legally-constituted body to

adjudicate in the case at hand. Although the perlocutionary act may be outside the scope of this

present study, it in noteworthy that the speech act is effected when the court in its final

judgement sets the accused officer free and dismisses the two other accused officers. ( The

Guardian, Nigeria, January 6, 2005).

4. Conclusion

In this study, efforts have been made to show military courtroom procedures as specialised legal

transactions. The discussion has elucidated the views posited in the theoretical considerations


that language has always been very central in all legal proceedings as institutional and social

goals constitute their primary objectives. Courtroom interactions drawing resources from

language are aimed at achieving the goal of regulating human behaviour, promoting law and

order and creating the enabling environment for members of the society to enjoy their

fundamental human rights.

It is found that the military as a corporate member of the community cannot be totally

insulated from the civil society as their activities impact the larger society. This study has

discussed a high profile legal trial involving officers within the top echelon of the Nigerian Navy

with some social-political and legal implications. We observe that the discursive event exhibits

the following features: (i) the first in the history of Nigerian Navy that generated such wide

publicity and national interest because of the calibre of the accused officers; (ii) the facts of the

case have been seriously ‘politicised’ and involved a lot of sensitive issues and information-

gathering; (iii) the courtroom texts fall under the category of discourses which, over and above

their formulation, are said definitely, remain said, and are to be said again; formulae texts and

ritualized sets of discourses recited in well-defined circumstances; things said once and

preserved or documented to be acted upon now or in future (Foucault, 1982); (iv) the texts are

rule-governed, indicating systems of restrictions or rituals that define the gestures, behaviour,

circumstances and the whole set of signs which must accompany the discourse; (v) the legal texts

exhibit linguistic and discourse features that function as communicative acts; (vi) the utterances

produced especially by the trial jury during the trial have legal force because words of the law

are in themselves law (Crystal & Davy 1969); (vii) the legal texts are authoritative, creating,

modifying or terminating the rights and obligations of individuals or institutions (Tiersma,

2004); (viii) the text exhibits general features of legal discourse which include argot/technical

terminology, jargon, complicated syntax, and features otherwise found only in written discourse,

also confirming co Morrow’s (1994) view that that formal legal language frequently consists of

written texts rendered orally; and (x) this study also finds that some utterances in the trial are

instances of speech acts.

The study has, to some extent, shown the reality of the linguistic, socio-political,

institutional and socio-cultural dynamics that influence legal discourse. We observe that the trial

became a celebrated case generating national debates and media attention. The arrest and trial of

the naval admirals also confirm the importance the central government attaches to the case. This


effort is thus a modest contribution to the growing body of literature in judicio-discursive

practice in this jurisdiction.

This study has also confirmed the interconnection between language and legal procedure

as an instrument for regulating social behaviours as well as for promoting and sustaining

institutional integrity and societal values as enacted in the Military Tribunal Discourse (MTD).

One may equally argue that this study may have, in a way, pointed in one direction that

specialised courtrooms may face some challenge in some jurisdiction. We observe that this trial

becomes a confluence where manifestations of ideologies from the military, legal and civil

institutions ‘collide’. Some legal scholars believe that such situation may promote some

worrisome development for the legal institution within a truly democratic setting (e.g. Ajibola,

op cit). In conclusion, we agree with Gibson’s ( 2008) submission that military courts constitute

a salient feature of the legal landscape in many countries and will continue to do despite the

concerns and subtle criticisms from some advocates of civil rights and constitutional laws.

REFERENCES

Andreu-Guzman, F. (2004): Military jurisdiction and international law: Military courts and

gross human rights violations (Vol 1) Switzerland: International Commission of Jurists.

<icj.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com> Visited 04 August 2012. <http://icj.wpengine.netdna-

cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2004/01/Military-jurisdiction-publication-2004.pdf >

Aronson, O. (2010): Out of many: military commissions, religious tribunals, and the democratic

virtues of court specialization. Virginia journal of international law, 51(2) 231-298.[

<http://www.vjil.org]. Visited 13 October 2011

<http://www.vjil.org/assets/pdfs/vol51/issue2/Aronson.pdf >

Awonusi, V. O. (2004): The functions of Nigerian English in relation to other Nigerian

languages. In Dadzie, A.B.K. and Awonusi, S. (eds) Nigerian English: Influences and

characteristics. Lagos: Concept Publication, 67-82.

Austin, J. L. (1962): How to do things with words London: Longman.

COOK, G. (1989): Discourse. London: Routledge.


Davis, S. (2001): Utterance acts and speech acts. In Daniel Vanderveken, and Susumu KUBO

(eds) Essays in speech act theory. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp135-150.

Fairclough, N. (1989): Language and power. New York: Longman.

Fairclough, N. & Wodak, R. (1997): Critical discourse analysis. In Teun Van Dijk, (ed.),

Discourse studies. A multidisciplinary introduction, Vol. 2. Discourse as social

interaction (pp. 258-84). London: Sage.

Gibson, M. ( 2008 ): International human rights law and the administration of justice through

military tribunals: Preserving utility while precluding impunity. Journal of international

law and international relations Vol. 4(1) <www.law.yale.edu> Visited 13 January 2014

<http://www.law.yale.edu/JILIR_International_Tribunals.pdf >

Hage, J. C., Leenes, R., & Lodder, A. R. (1993): “Hard cases: A procedural approach,” Artificial

intelligence and law Vol 2, No 2. <www.springerlink.com> Visited 29 March 2007.

<www.springerlink.com/index/NPQ0525755788U01.pdf.>

Haworth, J. (2009): An analysis of police interview discourse and its role(s) in the judicial

process. An unpublished Doctoral Dissertation , University of Nottingham, UK.

<www.etheses.nottingham.ac.uk> Visited 8 September 2012

<http://etheses.nottingham.ac.uk/2253/1/KJH_PhD_final.pdf >

Irizarry, E. (1995): Computers and the humanities 29: 363-374. <www.jstor.org> Visited 12 July

2012. <http://www.jstor.org/pss/30204647 >

Luchjenbroers, J. (1991): Discourse dynamics in the courtroom: Some methodological points of

description. Bundoora, Victoria: Linguistics Program, La Trobe University.

<jthomasniu.org> Visited 14 September 2011.

<http://jthomasniu.org/class/540/Assigs/luch.pdf >

Maccormick, N. & Weinberger, O. (1986): An institutional theory of law. Dordrecht: D.Reidel.

Melo, C. J. de Sousa, (2001): Possible directions of fit between mind, language and the world.

In. Daniel Vanderveken, & Susumu Kubo (eds) Essays in speech act theory.

Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp.109-118.

O'Barr, W. (1984): Linguistic evidence, language, power and strategy in the courtroom. London:

Academic Press.


Olaniyan, K. (2011): Cohesion and coherence in editors’ comments in tell magazines. The

studies in English language <isel.oauife.edu.ng> Visited 27 September 2012.

<http://isel.oauife.edu.ng/upload/isel13.pdf >

Opeibi, B. (2008c): “A study of interrogatives in a Nigerian courtroom discourse” In Olson,

F. A. Lorz, and D. Stein (eds). Law and language: Theory and society. Düsseldorf:

Düsseldorf University Press, 147-176.

---(2008b): Between clarity and obscurity in legal language: A study of selected legal texts in

Nigeria. In Anne Wagner and Sophie Cacciaguidi-Fahy (eds) Obscurity and clarity in

the law: Prospects and challenges Hampshire, UK: Ashgate. 221-233.

---( 2005) : Sense and meaning in campaign texts: A study of cohesion in Nigerian political

discourse. Gege: Ogun studies in English, 5.1, 166-204.

---(2004): A discourse analysis of language use in the 1993 presidential election campaigns in

Nigeria. An unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of Lagos.

---(2003):The acts of speech act: an examination of a courtroom discourse. Lagos Notes and

Records, A Journal of the Faculty of Arts, University of Lagos, Nigeria, Vol. IX: 172-

195.

---(forthcoming): An exploration of courtroom discourse in Nigeria. Language and law journal-

(E-Journal), Germany.

Prideaux, G. D. (1997): Notes on discourse analysis of selected zundelsite materials.

<www.nizkor.org> Visited 28 September 2012.

<http://www.nizkor.org/hweb/people/p/prideaux-gary/zundelsite-discourse

analysis.html.

Ruiter, D. W.P. (1993): Institutional legal facts: Legal powers and their effects. Dordrecht:

Kluwer Academic Publisher.

Santos, T. A. (2001):‘Politics in second language writing.’ In Tony Silva and Paul Kie

Matsuda (eds.) On second language writing. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum

Associates. 173–190.

Santos, M. (2004): A paralinguistic analysis of courtroom questions in a multilingual context.

Unpublished doctoral dissertation: De La Salle University, Manila.

<www.tesionline.com> Visited 8 July 2011

<www.tesionline.com/intl/thesis.jsp?idt=18309>


Schiffrin, D. (1994): Approaches to discourse analysis London: Blackwell.

Deborah Schiffrin, Tannen, D. and Hamilton H., (eds.) (2001): The handbook of discourse

analysis. Oxford: Blackwell.

Searle, J.R. (1991): Speech acts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Searle, J.R. ( 1969): Speech acts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Searle, J. R. & Vanderveken, D. (1985): Foundations of illocutionary logic. Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press.

Shi, G. (2011): An analysis of attitude in Chinese courtroom discourse. <www.

Interstraltension.org> Visited 05 July 2011. <http:// www. Interstraltension.org/wp-

content/uploads/.../Attitude-in-CCD_.pdf >

Smith, P. W. H. (1991): Speech act theory, discourse structure and indirect speech acts. An

unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of Leeds <www.etheses.whiterose.ac.uk>

Visited 16 June 2012. <http://etheses.whiterose.ac.uk/734/ >

Stubbs, M. (1983): Discourse analysis: A sociolinguistic analysis of natural language. Chicago:

University of Chicago Press.

Qing, Z. (2010): An analysis of purpose relations in the courtroom discourse

<www.en.cnki.com> Visited 18 June 2012.

<www.en.cnki.com/articles_en/CJFDTOTAL-SXDD201006027.htm>

Uwakah, O.T. (1997): Due process in Nigeria's administrative law system : History, current

status, and future Maryland: University of America Incorporated.

Wagner, A. & Cheng, L. (eds) (2011): Exploring courtroom discourse: The language of power

and control London: Ashgate- <www.ashgate.com> Visited 14 June 2012.

<http://www.ashgate.com/pdf/SamplePages/Exploring_Courtroom_Discourse_Ch1.pdf

>

Watkins, M. J. (1999): The military court martial versus The civilian court trial --Campbell

University, Pope Air Force Base, NC Criminal Justice Administration-

<www.coolings.net> Visited 10 June 2012

<http://www.coolings.net/education/papers/The%20Military%20Court%20Martial%20v

s.%20Civilian%20Court%20Trial.pdf>

Wodak, R. (2007): Pragmatics and discourse analysis: A Cross-disciplinary inquiry. Pragmatics

and Cognition 15(1) 203-225.


Van Dijk, T. (2002): Political discourse and ideology, Doxa Communicaxion, No 1

<www.uspceu.com> Visited 08 September 2012.

<http://www.uspceu.com/CNTRGF/RGF_DOXA13_616.pdf>

---(2001): Critical Discourse Analysis. In D. Schiffrin, D. Tannen, D and H. Hamilton (eds) The

Handbook of Discourse Analysis. Oxford: Blackwell

---(1997): Critical discourse analysis. <www.discourses.org> Visited 22 March 2012.

<http://www.discourses.org/OldArticles/Critical%20discourse%20analysis.pdf>

---(1993): Principles of critical discourse analysis. Discourse and society 4(2), 249-283.

[www.discourses.org] Visited 24 March 2012.

<http://www.discourses.org/OldArticles/Principles%20of%20critical%20discourse%20a

nalysis.pdf>

---(1988): News as discourse. Hillsdale NJ: Erlbaum.

Yule, G. (1996): The study of language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Newspapers

The Guardian Thursday, December 30, 2004:9

The Guardian Tuesday, December 28, 2004

The Guardian, Nigeria, January 6, 2005

Additional Web Resources Consulted

- <www.itiscannizzaro.net> Visited 13 June 2012

<www.itiscannizzaro.net/Ianni/torvergata/linfoweb/home/speechacts.ppt>

-<writ.news.findlaw.com> Visited 14 June 2012

<http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dean/20011207.html>

-<www.ehow.com> Visited 06 June 2012

What Is the Difference Between a Military Tribunal Trial & a Civilian Criminal Court

Trial? <eHow.com ><http://www.ehow.com/facts_7624044_difference-civilian-

criminal-court-trial.html#ixzz1X6ShTQNF>

-<archives.cnn.com] Visited 14 July 2012>

<http://archives.cnn.com/2001/LAW/12/06/inv.tribunals.explainer/index.html>


-<www.crf-usa.org] Visited 10 August 2012>

<http://www.crf-usa.org/america-responds-to-terrorism/military-tribunals.html>

"Why I Should Be Set Free?": A Discursive-Analytic Study of the Trial of Naval Admirals in Nigeria....

Documents

Transcript of "Why I Should Be Set Free?": A Discursive-Analytic Study of the Trial of Naval Admirals in Nigeria....