The Court of Appeal has affirmed the conviction and sentencing of a former Group Managing Director of Nigerian Army Properties Limited (NAPL), Umar Mohammed, ordering him to refund funds running into over ₦4 billion to the military-owned company.

In a judgment contained in the Certified True Copy (CTC) released to parties, the appellate court dismissed the appeal filed by the former army chief challenging both the jurisdiction of the Special Court Martial that tried him and the validity of the verdict delivered against him.

The court held that the Special Court Martial of the Nigerian Army acted within the law when it tried and convicted Mohammed for offences bordering on stealing and misappropriation of company funds while serving as the head of NAPL.

The appellate panel ruled that the arguments raised by the appellant lacked merit and therefore upheld the earlier judgment which found him guilty of diverting funds belonging to the military property company.

Mohammed had previously been tried and convicted by the Special Court Martial on October 10, 2023, where he was sentenced to prison and dismissed from service after being found culpable in the financial misconduct involving funds of the company.

As part of the sentence, the court ordered him to refund $2,099,700 and ₦1.65 billion to Nigerian Army Properties Limited, an amount which translates to over ₦4 billion.

The Court of Appeal, in its decision, maintained that the prosecution had successfully proved the charges against the former general beyond reasonable doubt, adding that the evidence presented during the trial clearly established the offences.

With the dismissal of his appeal, the earlier conviction and financial restitution order remain in force.

The case is regarded as one of the most prominent military corruption prosecutions in recent years involving a senior officer of the Nigerian Armed Forces.

Legal analysts say the ruling reinforces accountability within the military establishment and underscores the authority of court-martial proceedings in addressing offences committed by serving officers.

Shares:
Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *