Tag: Forfeiture Order

  • Ike Ekweremadu: Court strikes out forfeiture order filed by EFCC

    Ike Ekweremadu: Court strikes out forfeiture order filed by EFCC

    A federal high court sitting in Abuja has stroked out an interim order of forfeiture filed by the Economic and Financial Crime Commission, (EFCC), on properties belonging to the former deputy senate president, Ike Ekweremadu.

    Justice Inyang Ekwo, presiding on the case on Friday, stated that EFCC concealed facts when it applied for an interim forfeiture of the assets, stating that the application for forfeiture was not brought in good faith and ought to be struck out.

    According to Inyang Ekwo, he said that; “I do not think that the desired objective of the legislature in enacting the provision of Section 17 of the Advance Fee Fraud and Other Related Offences Act (AFFOROA), 2006 relied upon by the respondent (EFCC) in initiating the proceeding to obtain an ex-parte order of interim forfeiture order was for the provision to be used in any circumstance where the person affected is not in a position to defend himself or show cause as required.

    “I do not think that this position is correct. The requirement to file affidavit to show cause pursuant to S. 17 of the AFFOROA, 2006 will hold strong in a normal situation where the person required to do so is not fettered by any act, condition or situation that amounts to a deprivation of the right to show cause as required by law.

    “In this case, the respondent (EFCC) wrote Exhibit SIE 2 (a letter) to the Crown Prosecution Service in the United Kingdom which letter was used as evidence to deny Senator Ike Ekweremadu bail in the criminal proceedings.

    “At the same time, the respondent filed ex-parte application for interim forfeiture which upon order being made thereon required Senator Ike Ekweremadu and his wife to show cause in Nigeria why an order for final forfeiture ought not to be made.

    “I have been asking myself the question repeatedly: How can a citizen of Nigeria who is incarcerated outside the country to the knowledge of the respondent, be expected to show cause in an action in Nigeria brought by the respondent?

    “In other words, how do you help to tie down a man and initiate a fight and demand that the same man you have helped to tie down must defend himself?

    “This in my opinion, is an unconscionable act. The act of the respondent clearly shows that this action was brought in bad faith.

    “In law, bad faith entails dishonesty of belief or purpose. On the whole, I find that the application for forfeiture, going by the facts of this case has not been brought in good faith and ought to be struck out.

    “Once more, this court needs to apply the test of reasonableness of the act of the respondent in initiating the proceeding leading to the interim forfeiture order. I have done so and found this applicant ex-parte wanting in that respect.

    “Consequently, I make the following orders:

    “An order is hereby made setting aside the interim forfeiture order of the properties of Senator Ike Ekweremadu and his companies made by this court on 4th day of November, 2022, upon the ex-parte Originating Motion filed by the Economic and Finance Crimes Commission (EFCC) on 27 July, 2022.

    ” The entire proceeding initiated by the respondent is hereby set aside.”

  • Court refuses to make forfeiture order on Patience Jonathan’s $8.4m, N7.4b

    Court refuses to make forfeiture order on Patience Jonathan’s $8.4m, N7.4b

    The Federal High Court in Lagos on Thursday refused to order the forfeiture of $8.4 million and N7.4 billion linked to former First Lady Dame Patience Jonathan.

    Justice Mojisola Olatoregun refused an Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) application for a final forfeiture of the sums seized from the former First Lady.

    The judge had last April 20 ordered temporary forfeiture of the funds which EFCC said were suspected to be proceeds of crime.

    Mrs Jonathan, Globus Integrated Services Ltd, Finchley Top Homes Ltd., Am-Pm Global Network Ltd, Pagmat Oil and Gas Ltd and Magel Resort Ltd and Esther Oba are the respondents.

    Among the temporarily forfeited sums are N1.085billion and N226.3million found in Finchley’s Ecobank account and N39.4million found in its Diamond Bank account, as well as N55.9million found in Pagmat Oil and Gas’ Diamond Bank account, among others.

    Mrs Jonathan’s lawyers argued that the money included donations and legitimate earnings by the companies linked to her.

    Justice Olatoregun said parties must give oral evidence to justify the money’s source and ownership.

    I have stated here that the right of parties in this suit cannot be determined by affidavit evidence.

    Oral testimonies are to be called with cross extermination.

    I hereby order parties to call upon their witnesses so that the right of parties can be determined one way or the other,” the judge ruled.

    EFCC said the money is “reasonably suspected to be proceeds of unlawful activity”.

    The commission also faulted Mrs Jonathan’s claim that some of the funds were donations.

    From the totality of what she filed, she did not disclose the identities of those who made the donations. Fictitious names were used to deposit the funds in the accounts, which show their fraudulent nature,” EFCC said.

     

  • Malabu oil: Court fixes March 13 for ruling on forfeiture order

    The Federal High Court, Abuja, on Monday reserved ruling till March 13, two separate applications filed by Shell Nigeria Exploration Ltd, and Nigeria Agip Exploration Ltd, seeking reversal of forfeiture order.

    The companies are seeking court order to set aside an order of forfeiture, which it granted the EFCC in respect to Oil Prospecting Licence (OPL) 245.

    The two companies want the court to set aside the order it made on Jan. 26, on the grounds that the EFCC Chairman, in the ex- parte motion, was not the proper person to make such an application.

    Counsel to Shell, Prof. Koyinsola Ajayi (SAN), told the court that the EFCC chairman was wrong in law to have brought the ex-parte motion that led to the order of forfeiture in his capacity as chairman.

    Ajayi said that Section 28 of the EFCC Act did not allow the chairman to bring an ex- parte application in his capacity as chairman.

    He added that the application having been brought by an incompetent person could not invoke the jurisdiction of the court.

    Ajayi added that the order that was made was supposedly to preserve property or assets.

    He, however, said that there was nothing to show that the property in question could be destroyed or moved.

    “This is a licence over some thousands of kilometres over the ocean and the ocean cannot be destroyed or taken away or put under seal by the EFCC.”

    He maintained that it was an intangible thing that was subject to the control of the Federal Government.

    Ajayi submitted that there were three conditions precedent which ought to have been met by the EFCC before bringing the ex-parte motion.

    Specifically, he said that the EFCC ought to have made arrest, trace the property, apply for an order of attachment before seeking an order of forfeiture.

    He said since these three conditions were not met, the order of forfeiture granted was a nullity.

    According to him, by not following the laid down precedent, the EFCC has abused court processes and to that effect, their case is patently hopeless.

    He also said that Section 115 of the Evidence Act was “violently violated,” because the EFCC in its supporting affidavit claimed that it had concluded investigation, whereas the order of attachment could only be applied for pending investigation.

    He also said that there was nothing to show that the order of attachment was a fallout of a nine-count charge filed against the two oil companies before another court as was claimed by the EFCC.

    Ajayi said there was nothing in that charge that showed that it had anything to do with OPL 245, and that the claims that it was fallout could not hold water.

    Opposing the application, the EFCC counsel Mr Johnson Ojogbane, asked the court to dismiss the two applications on the grounds that there was no proper suit before the court.

    He said that the ex-parte application was filed by the chairman in line with Section 44 of the 1999 Constitution, and as such was a competent person to bring the said application on behalf of the commission.

    Ojogbane said that the application lacked merit and should be dismissed as granting it would be a disservice to the Federal Government and Nigerians.

    He urged the court not to vacate the forfeiture order in respect to OPL 245 because of the element of criminality involved.

    The judge, Justice John Tsoho adjourned the matter till March 13 to rule on whether to set aside the order of attachment or not.

    The News Agency of Nigeria (NAN) reports that Justice Tsoho had granted the order of forfeiture following an ex-parte motion filed by the EFCC.

    The court ordered that the property be managed by the Department of Petroleum Resources on behalf of the Federal Government, pending the conclusion of investigation and prosecution of all those involved.

    The EFCC counsel in the motion had noted that the investigation bordered on alleged acts of conspiracy, bribery, official corruption and money laundering.

    Nine suspects were charged to court over the issue in 2016, including the former Attorney-General of the Federation and Minister of Justice, Mr Mohammed Adoke.

    Shell and Agip had approached the court on Feb. 14 asking for an order to discharge the order of forfeiture of OPL 245.

     

    NAN