By ZAKAA LAZARUS
After years of legal battles and prolonged uncertainty, a group of military veterans has finally secured victory at the Supreme Court of Nigeria, which ruled in their favour in a dispute involving landed property and the restoration of Major General Ibrahim Sani’s rank.
The judgment brings to a close a long-standing case between the veterans and the Nigerian Army, ending a protracted legal contest that moved through several layers of the judicial system before reaching the nation’s apex court.
At the heart of the dispute was a parcel of land — Plot 2303, Asokoro Cadastre A04, located behind Mogadishu Cantonment (formerly Sani Abacha Barracks) in Abuja — originally allocated to veterans who served the country in various military operations, including peacekeeping missions under the ECOWAS Monitoring Group (ECOMOG) and other national assignments.
The veterans argued that the property was intended to serve as part of their welfare and post-service entitlements in recognition of their sacrifices during active service, particularly in conflict and peacekeeping operations.
Following years of litigation, the Supreme Court affirmed the position of the veterans, ruling that their claims were valid and that the rights attached to the property must be respected.
In the case marked SC/1497C/2019, the Nigerian Army was the appellant while Major General I. Sani served as the respondent on behalf of the veterans. The judgment was delivered on January 30, 2026, by Justice Obande Festus Ogbuinya of the Supreme Court, alongside four other justices of the apex court.
According to court records, the appeal stemmed from an earlier decision of the Court of Appeal, Abuja Division, delivered on April 18, 2019, which nullified the ruling of the Special Court Martial and ordered a retrial of the case. The Special Court Martial had earlier convicted the General and sentenced him to a reduction in rank, as well as ordered restitution of funds contributed by military veterans for infrastructure development.
Court documents indicate that the case originated from allegations involving the misuse of public service property, falsification of documents, and related offences under the Armed Forces Act.
The charges were linked to issues surrounding an uncharted parcel of land bordering the Nigerian Army’s Plot 2302 behind Mogadishu Cantonment in Asokoro, Abuja.
The respondent, who served as a Major General and Chief of Transformation and Innovation at Army Headquarters at the time, was arraigned before a General Court Martial on a nine-count charge. After the trial, the court martial found him guilty on several counts and imposed sanctions, although he was acquitted on some of the charges.
However, stakeholders at the time raised concerns about the jurisdiction of the Special Court Martial to preside over land matters, citing provisions of the Land Use Act of 1978 as incorporated under Section 315(5)(d) of the Constitution.
Dissatisfied with the outcome, the General approached the Court of Appeal, which subsequently ruled in his favour, setting aside the conviction and directing that the matter be retried.
The Nigerian Army then challenged the appellate court’s ruling at the Supreme Court, arguing that the Court of Appeal had erred in law by overturning the decision of the Special Court Martial.
In delivering the judgment, Justice Obande Festus Ogbuinya stated:
“On the whole, having resolved the two issues against the appellant, the destiny of the appeal is obvious. It is destitute of any morsel of merit and deserves the reserved penalty of dismissal.
Consequently, I dismiss the appeal. Accordingly, the judgment of the lower court in Appeal No. CA/A/791C/2017, delivered on April 18, 2019, which set aside the decision of the General Court Martial and ordered a retrial of the respondent in Charge No. NA/COAS/G/1/39, delivered on July 20, 2017, is hereby affirmed in its entirety.”
An Abuja-based legal practitioner further clarified that the term “set aside,” as upheld in the ruling of the apex court, means that the prior order or judgment has been vacated or declared void — effectively rendering the earlier Court Martial proceedings as though they never existed.
During the proceedings, the Supreme Court also considered a preliminary objection raised by the respondent seeking dismissal of the appeal on the grounds that some of the grounds of appeal were incompetent. After reviewing arguments from both parties, the court dismissed the objection and proceeded to consider the substantive issues raised in the appeal.
The decision was received with excitement and relief among the affected veterans, many of whom had waited for years to see justice served after what they described as a difficult and exhausting legal journey.
Some of the surviving beneficiaries of the land, as well as next of kin of deceased veterans, expressed gratitude to the judiciary for upholding the principles of justice and fairness, noting that the ruling restores confidence in the rule of law.
Family members of some veterans who died while awaiting the resolution of the case also welcomed the judgment, saying it brings honour to the memory of those who served the country but did not live to witness the outcome.
Legal observers say the ruling underscores the authority of the courts in safeguarding the rights and welfare of military personnel, particularly in matters concerning their entitlements after service.
For the veterans, however, the judgment represents more than a legal victory. It marks the end of a long struggle and signals renewed hope under the current administration’s agenda for the welfare of military veterans.
