\n\nThe issue comes down to jurisdiction, legal tradition, and the nature of military courts.
1. Legal robes are tied to “courts of record”
In Nigeria, the wearing of the wig and gown (legal robe) is governed by professional rules and tradition. Lawyers are expected to wear them only in superior courts of record like High Courts, the Court of Appeal, and the Supreme Court. 
Military courts (like courts-martial) are not classified the same way. They are specialized tribunals set up under military law, not part of the regular judicial hierarchy.
2. Military courts are not conventional civil courts
A court-martial is essentially a disciplinary tribunal within the armed forces, not a civilian court.
• It operates under military rules and procedures
• It is often presided over by military officers, not traditional judges
Because of this, the formal courtroom traditions including wigs and gowns don’t apply.
3. Uniform overrides legal dress
In military proceedings:
• Military personnel (including legal officers) appear in military uniform
• The system prioritizes discipline, hierarchy, and command structure
Allowing wigs and gowns would conflict with the military identity and structure of the tribunal.
4. Functional, not symbolic proceedings
Legal robes are largely symbolic, representing the authority and tradition of the civil judiciary.
Military courts, on the other hand, focus more on:
• Efficiency and discipline
• Operational justice within the armed forces
So the symbolism of robes is considered unnecessary.
Lawyers are not robed before military courts because:
• Those courts are not part of the regular judicial system
• The rules of legal dress don’t apply there
• Military proceedings follow their own uniform-based structure and traditions
