On Tuesday, the Nigerian Army Special Court Martial sentenced a former group managing director of the Nigerian Army Properties Limited (NAPL), Maj.-Gen. Umaru Mohammed, to seven years’ imprisonment.

The court also ordered the convicted senior officer to refund $2.17 million and N1.06 billion, the monies he stole, back to the company’s coffers.

Pronouncing the sentence, the president of the court, Maj.-Gen. James Myam said the officer was found guilty on 14 of the 18 count charges brought against him.

Mr Myam said the sentence was based on the provisions of the Criminal Code Act Cap C38 Laws of the Federation of Nigeria 2004 and section 174 of the Armed Forces Act Cap 20 Laws, 2004.

According to him, the verdict was made after due consideration of the plea of mitigation by the defence counsel.

“These sentences of this special court martial are all to run concurrently and are subject to the confirmation of the confirming authority.

“This sentence is dated this day, the 10th of October 2023 and the court is hereby adjourned Sine die,” he said.

Mr Myam said that on count one, which borders on stealing, Mr Mohammed was found guilty and will spend five years in prison and refund $1.04 million back to NAPL.

The court also found the officer guilty on count two and sentenced him to five years imprisonment, in addition to paying back $400,800 to NAPL.

On count three, Mr Mohammed was sentenced to five years imprisonment and to refund the sum of $85,400, while count four also attracted five years’ imprisonment with an order to pay back $35,300.

On count five, the former NAPL boss was sentenced to five years’ imprisonment with an order to pay back $55,500 to the NAPL.

Count six also attracted five years’ imprisonment with an order to pay back $46,500.

The court, however, discharged and acquitted him of the charge in count 7 but sentenced him to seven years’ imprisonment on count eight. The remaining charges he was convicted of attracted five and two years imprisonment.

The defence counsel, Olalekan Ojo (SAN), citing section 157 of the Armed Forces Act, prayed the court to move his client to a custodial centre instead of the military detention facility, which the court rejected.

Mr Ojo said he would consult his client on whether to appeal the judgment.

“If he tells us tomorrow or after the confirmation that he is not satisfied with the findings and sentence, then we must carry out his instruction to appeal if he so instructs us, the decision is his,” he added. 

(NAN)