NHRC Urged to Probe Army’s Claims in Ex-Soldier Matilda Anighoro’s Case Over Alleged Record Contradictions

06th August, 2026 | Nigeria | Human Rights

The National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) has been urged to independently scrutinise the Nigerian Army’s handling of the case involving former soldier Corporal Matilda Anighoro, following allegations that the Army’s official explanation contains contradictions with its own administrative records.

Anighoro, who previously accused senior military officers of sexual harassment, torture and unlawful detention, had earlier raised concerns over an alleged plot to arrest her after she was contacted by officials of the Army’s Special Investigation Bureau (SIB). She said the call, purportedly inviting her to Abuja for documentation relating to her case, heightened fears for her safety because of inconsistencies in the instructions she received.

In a letter dated June 24, 2026, the Directorate of Legal Services at Army Headquarters maintained that Anighoro was lawfully demoted following disciplinary proceedings before her voluntary discharge from service. The Army insisted that her retirement benefits were processed based on her reduced rank.

However, a petition submitted to the NHRC challenged the Army’s position, arguing that several official military records contradict the claim that Anighoro was reduced in rank from Corporal to Private in February 2024.

According to the petitioner, although the Army claimed Anighoro was tried on five disciplinary charges—including disobedience to standing orders, offences relating to sentry duties, insubordination and conduct prejudicial to service discipline—subsequent administrative records continued to recognise her as a Corporal.

The petition cited Section 36 of the 1999 Constitution and the Armed Forces Act, arguing that disciplinary actions affecting an individual’s rights must be properly documented, lawful and verifiable.

Among the alleged inconsistencies highlighted were that the Chief of Army Staff reportedly approved Anighoro’s voluntary discharge in the rank of Corporal several months after the alleged demotion. The petitioner also claimed she continued receiving the salary and allowances of a Corporal until January 2025, while her Security Disbandment benefits were calculated using the same rank. Additionally, her official military identity card allegedly still identifies her as a Corporal.

The petitioner further argued that the available Part II Orders did not reflect any conviction or reduction in rank corresponding with the disciplinary action cited by Army Headquarters.

Based on these alleged discrepancies, the petitioner urged the NHRC to compel the Nigerian Army to produce the complete records of the disciplinary proceedings, including the charge sheet, trial proceedings, findings, punishment, approval documents and official records showing the alleged reduction in rank.

The petition also requested an independent investigation into whether the disciplinary measures were influenced by Anighoro’s earlier allegations that she faced sexual pressure after allegedly rejecting an advance from General Okoigi Solomon.

According to the petitioner, if the Army cannot produce the requested documents, the Commission should draw appropriate conclusions regarding the credibility of the Army’s claims and recommend an independent inquiry.

Meanwhile, the Nigerian Army has rejected allegations that Anighoro’s discharge certificate and retirement documents were withheld.

In an earlier response signed on behalf of the Chief of Army Staff, Army Headquarters stated that investigations confirmed Anighoro was lawfully tried and punished under the Armed Forces Act before her voluntary discharge.

The Army maintained that she was demoted from Corporal to Lance Corporal on one count and subsequently to Private on another, effective February 29, 2024, adding that all retirement documents were processed based on her revised rank.

Army Headquarters also alleged that Anighoro declined to collect her discharge certificate despite being informed it was ready, claiming she instead chose to publicise the matter on social media. The military insisted that her substantive rank at retirement remained Private and denied any wrongdoing.

The dispute has now placed the National Human Rights Commission at the centre of calls for an independent review to determine whether due process was followed and whether the Army’s official records support its position in the case.