Ex-Major General Takes Court-Martial Conviction Battle to Supreme Court

A former Major General in the Nigerian Army, UM Mohammed, has approached the Supreme Court of Nigeria to challenge a judgment of the Court of Appeal (Nigeria) delivered on February 9, 2026.

Mohammed’s appeal at the appellate court against his conviction by a Special Court Martial only succeeded in part before a three-member panel.

The former senior officer had earlier challenged the judgment of the Special Court Martial convened by the Army Headquarters Garrison (AHQ Garrison), which convicted and sentenced him over allegations of misappropriation of funds belonging to Nigerian Army Properties Limited (NAPL).

NAPL is a private limited liability company in which the Nigerian Army is a promoter, while Mohammed was also listed as one of its shareholders.

The ex-General served as the Managing Director of the company and operated under the supervision of the then Chief of Army Staff, who also served as Chairman of the firm. Mohammed maintains that expenditures and financial decisions in the company were carried out based on directives from the leadership.

Speaking to reporters, the former General compared his trial to a remark once attributed to former transport minister Umaru Dikko after the 1983 military coup.

He said his situation was akin to “holding the conductor responsible in a traffic accident while the driver walks free.”

Mohammed argued that while he was convicted by the Special Court Martial, the person who allegedly issued the directives leading to the transactions has not been held accountable.

According to him, the trial was marked by intrigue and what he described as a witch-hunt, adding that he remains confident that justice will prevail at the Supreme Court.

Court documents show that he has filed a Motion for Leave to Appeal the appellate court’s decision, with Motion No: CA/ABJ/PRE/ROA/CR/174MI/2026, asking the apex court to set aside part of the Court of Appeal judgment and nullify the verdict of the Special Court Martial.

However, members of the ex-General’s legal team declined to comment on the matter, saying the case is sub judice and currently before a court of competent jurisdiction.