TheNewsGuru

Tag: Patience Jonathan

  • Court orders investigation into demolition of Patience Jonathan’s property

    The Federal High Court in Abuja on Monday directed an inquiry into the alleged demolition of a property in Abuja linked to the wife of former President Goodluck Jonathan, Mrs. Patience Jonathan.

    The Development Control Department of the Federal Capital Territory Administration reportedly demolished the property last week Tuesday.

    But the property is said to be a subject of forfeiture proceedings initiated by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission.

    Justice Nnamdi Dimgba on Monday adjourned the proceedings to enable parties to the suit to report back to the court on the alleged demolition.

    The judge requested a report on the issue following the complaint by Patience’s counsel, Chief Mike Ozekhome (SAN), who said a property owned by a non-governmental organisation, A. Aruera Reachout Foundation/Women For Change and Development Initiative, the ex-First Lady’s pet project, had been demolished by an agency of the government.

    But Justice Dimgba said the court could not act without first ascertaining whether or not the property in question had been destroyed.

    “I will adjourn for the claim that the property has been demolished to be ascertained to enable the court to know what proper steps should be taken,” Justice Dimgba said.

    He adjourned till February 26 for the report of the probe and possible hearing of the applications filed by parties.

    The EFCC had filed an ex-parte application before the court for temporary forfeiture of the same property.

    Ozekhome, acting for the Registered Trustees of Aruera Foundation, had filed an objection to the motion.

    Earlier, during the Monday’s proceedings, Ozekhome told the court that the property which EFCC was seeking its forfeiture to the government had been demolished by an agency of the government.

    He did not mention which particular government agency was responsible but expressed concern that the government had resorted to self-help instead of allowing the court to resolve issues before the court.

    He flaunted some envelopes, which he said contained video recordings and pictures of the demolition.

    He also produced some newspapers, which he said contained reports of the demolition.

    When asked by the judge, EFCC’s counsel, Mr. Benjamin Manji, denied knowledge of the demolition.

    Manji said EFCC was not aware of the development.

    He added, “Our mandate is clear, it does not include demolition. We need to confirm if the property is still in existence before we can proceed with our application for temporary forfeiture.”

    Ozekhome agreed that the state of the property be ascertained first before further steps could be taken on the case.

    He said he would file an affidavit for the formal presentation of the video recording, pictures and newspaper publications of the demolition before the court.

    The judge adjourned until February 26.

  • Patience Jonathan’s Abuja property demolished by FCTA

    Former First Lady, Patience Jonathan’s property located in Abuja was on Tuesday demolished by the Development Control Department of the Federal Capital Territory Administration (FCTA).

    The property which is located along Shehu Yar’Adua Way, Mabushi–Kado–Life Camp expressway in the federal capital, was bulldozed over non-approval.

    The lawyer in charge of the property, Emmanuel Anene, who confirmed the development to newsmen, expressed shock over the demolition of the building, saying issues concerning the building were still in court.

    “Sometime before, people from Development Control came to the site, alleging that there was no approval for the building.

    “We met them at their office and showed them the approval, which they accepted. We thought that the matter was over.

    “They had earlier gone to court with an application for forfeiture of the property to the government which they failed to achieve at the Lagos High Court.

    “So we were surprised that a team came in this afternoon without notifying us to remove the structure.

    “Also, we were not served with any notice for demolition, they just came in now and started the demolition of the structure,’’ Anene said.

  • EFCC moves to seize fresh N7.35bn from Patience Jonathan

    The Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) on Monday asked the Federal High Court in Lagos to order the temporary forfeiture $8,435,788.84 and N7.35bn suspected to belong to former First Lady, Mrs. Patience Jonathan.

    The EFCC told Justice Mojisola Olatoregun that the funds which it believes emanated from Bayelsa State, were found in 15 bank accounts linked with the Mrs. Jonathan.

    The anti-graft agency’s counsel, Mr. Rotimi Oyedepo, said the order would prevent the ex-first lady from dissipating them.

    According to the EFCC, the funds were moved from Bayelsa State’s coffers at a time Mrs. Jonathan served as permanent secretary.

    The Commission alleged that she gained access to the funds by fraudulently assuming the identity of one Esther Oba as the signatory to the said account.

    The EFCC’s claims were contained in an ex parte application filed by Oyedepo before Justice Olatoregun.

    However, the proceedings were interrupted by a train of Senior Advocates of Nigeria (SANs) led by Mr. Ifedayo Adedipe and Chief Mike Ozekhome, who challenged the court’s jurisdiction to entertain the ex parte application.

    The SANs told the judge that the funds which the EFCC seeks to seize were already subject of litigation.

  • JUST IN: Patience Jonathan loses at Appeal Court, to forfeit N5.7m to FG

    The Court of Appeal in Lagos on Friday dismissed an appeal filed by wife of former President Goodluck Jonathan, Patience, over the temporary forfeiture of her $5.7million.

    She had appealed against a ruling by the Federal High Court in Lagos which temporarily ordered the money’s forfeiture to the Federal Government.

    The Court of Appeal upheld the temporary forfeiture order made by Justice Mojisola Olatoregun on April 26 last year.

    She made the order based on an ex-parte application filed by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) through its counsel, Mr. Rotimi Oyedepo.

    The judge also ordered the temporary forfeiture N2,421,953,522.78 found in an Ecobank Nigeria Limited account numbered 2022000760 in the name of La Wari Furniture and Baths Limited.

    The Commission said the money also belongs to Mrs. Jonathan.

    The Court of Appeal similarly dismissed an appeal filed by La Wari Funiture and Baths.

    Through her lawyer, Chief Ifedayo Adedipe (SAN), Mrs. Jonathan urged the court to declare Section 17 of Advance Fee Fraud Act unconstitutional for being in conflict with the Evidence Act and the 1999 Constitution.

    In a judgment delivered by Justice Mojeed Owoade, the appellate court held that the appeals lacked merit.

    It upheld Oyedepo’s arguments and resolved the issues against the appellant.

    The court upheld the constitutionality of Section 17 of the Advance Fee fraud Act, which empowers the EFCC to apply for the forfeiture of property reasonably suspected to be proceed of unlawful activity to the federal government.

  • Patience Jonathan’s $15.5m stolen from govt, agencies – EFCC

    The Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) has told the Federal High Court in Lagos that former First Lady, Patience Jonathan could not have genuinely earned the $15.5million which she claims ownership of.

    In its defence to her suit challenging the freezing of her accounts, the commission argued that Mrs Jonathan does not run any business from which she could have earned such huge sums.

    EFCC said its investigations showed that the money was allegedly stolen from the Federal Government and its agencies, and that it does not belong to the former First Lady.

    “There is no way the plaintiff (Mrs Jonathan) could have genuinely earned the monies. She is the wife of the former president, a civil servant and a retired permanent secretary in Bayelsa State.

    “She does not run any profit and interest yielding business venture to generate such money.

    “Investigation conducted by the first defendant (EFCC) revealed that the plaintiff is not the owner of the funds in the accounts of the third to fifth defendants (companies), which funds were discovered to be proceeds of fraudulent activities of Waripamo-Owei Emmanuel Dudafa,” EFCC said.

    Mrs Jonathan sued the EFCC, Skye Bank Plc and three companies – Pluto Property and Investment Company Ltd, Seagate Property Development and Investment Company Ltd and Trans Ocean Property and Investment Company Ltd.

    She is praying for an order restraining the defendants from tampering with her funds in the companies’ accounts domiciled in Skye Bank.

    She asked for an order of interlocutory injunction restraining the EFCC from transferring the funds to the Federal Government’s Treasury Single Account (TSA).

    Mrs Jonanthan said the funds in the companies’ accounts belonged to her, but she had been unable to operate the account after EFCC placed a “no debit order” on the accounts.

    The former first lady said representatives of the companies, who pleaded guilty to laundering the money, were unknown to her; nor were they authorised to represent them.

    “The plaintiff/applicant is the lawful owner of her hard earned funds,” she said, adding that her ownership of the money has not been controverted by a third party.

    Mrs Jonathan said she sought the assistance of Dudafa, former Special Adviser on Domestic Affairs to ex-President Jonathan, to open some accounts in her name.

    She said she was issued with four ATM cards after the accounts were opened.

    According to her, she protested the fact that three of the four accounts bore the names of companies she had no connection with.

    The bank, she said, promised to rectify the issue. She continued to operate the accounts pending when changes would be effected, according to the former First Lady.

    Mrs Jonathan said she went abroad in July 2016 for a medical check-up and discovered that she could not make payments from the accounts due to the “no debit order”.

    The former First Lady, in her written address, accused EFCC making moves to take her money from her through an order of forfeiture.

    She said the moves included the “procurement of some unknown persons who pleaded guilty to a charge and were convicted on November 2, 2016.”

    In urging the court to lift the “no-debit order” and grant her access to her accounts, Mrs Jonathan said she “needs her money to able to cater to her health.”

    But, EFCC, in its statement of defence, said its investigations revealed that between 2013 and 2015, “huge sums of money were stolen from the Federal Government of Nigeria and its agencies.”

    The agencies, it said, were the Nigerian Maritime Administration and Safety Agency (NIMASA) and the office of the National Security Adviser (ONSA), “etc”.

    EFCC said some of the funds “were converted to dollars and converted to the use of Dudafa”.

    The commission said between February 21, 2014 and April 19, 2016, Pluto Property “fraudulently received and retained” $3,096,377.38.

    The sum, EFCC said, was deposited by State House domestic stewards, Festus Iyoha and Peter Arivin, “using fictitious names on the instruction of Dudafa.”

    The commission said between November 14, 2013 and June 27, 2016, Seagate Properties received $3,624,998.78; while Trans Ocean received $3,765,711.87, “which are suspected to be proceeds of crime.”

    Another company, Globus Integrated Services Limited, was said to have received “a whopping sum of $5,119,021.45” in its account.

    EFCC said after it charged the companies, their representatives pleaded guilty to retaining $15,591,700.

    It insisted that after analysing the companies’ accounts, “it is crystal clear that the plaintiff was neither a director nor a shareholder”.

    The commission said it was Dudafa who allegedly procured the domestic stewards in the State House Abuja to deposit the monies “in an attempt to disguise the proceeds of crime using fictitious names”.

    EFCC said it obtained a valid court order to freeze the accounts, and that it did not need to inform Mrs Jonathan before doing so “as the funds in the said accounts do not belong to her”.

    It added that the firmer First Lady was not entitled to any reliefs, and that her case “is frivolous, spurious, speculative, vexatious and an abuse of court process and should be dismissed with substantial cost.”

    Justice Mohammed Idris had ordered parties to file pleadings in the case, indicating that witnesses, including Mrs Jonathan, may testify to justify the money’s ownership.

    The case will be heard on January 19.

  • Seized $15.5million: Patience Jonathan begs court to de-freeze account

    Former First Lady, Dame Patience Jonathan, has refiled a suit seeking to vacate a no debit order placed on her account containing $15.5 million at Skye bank Plc by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC).

    The rifling of the suit was sequel to an order issued by Justice Mohammed Idris of a Federal High Court in Lagos on 8 May ordering her to refile the suit through writ rather than by originating summons.

    At the resumed hearing of the matter today , Justice Idris granted an application by the former first lady seeking an extension of time within which to reply to the EFCC’s statement of defence.

    The judge subsequently fixed 19 January 2018 as the date for the hearing of the suit.

    While ordering the refiling of the suit, Justice Idris held that it will not be proper for the former first lady to commence the suit by way of originating summons since issues surrounding the ownership of the money are largely contentious among parties.

    The judge while noting that oral evidences will be needed to resolve the issue in contention ordered parties to file their pleadings in line with the Federal High Court rules 2009 for trial to commence in the matter.

    “The EFCC had argued that the matter was not properly commenced by originating summons on the premise that the facts were in total dispute and as such ought to come by writ.

    “The plaintiff in her response argued that the affidavit evidence showed largely that there were no disputed facts of substance among the parties and that if the court is not sure of this, it should order pleadings so that a full trial can be embarked upon.

    “It is now settled in law that originating process is the ideal process to commence a suit where there is no dispute. The issue in contest is on the ownership of the funds in the account of the defendants.

    “In respect of this issue, the contention appears divided and facts are in substantial dispute. In the light of the above, it cannot be rightly contended that there are no disputed facts and substance as to the ownership of the said fund.

    “The issues of facts raised by the defendants are not spurious or irrelevant. The affidavit of the plaintiff is also not conjectural. In my view, the facts are contentious and oral evidence need to be led by the parties.

    “In the light of the above facts, this case is generally not suitable for an originating summon procedure. In the circumstances, the court hereby orders that the parties herein file pleadings in accordance with the Federal High Court rules 2009 and trial shall then proceed accordingly”, the judge held.

    The former first lady has accused the anti-graft agency of placing a no debit order on her account containing $15.5 million at Skye bank Plc without a valid court’s order.

    Mrs Jonathan, in the fundamental rights enforcement suit, is seeking an order to de-freeze the accounts where the money is domiciled, so that she can have access to it.

    Respondents in the suit are; the EFCC, Skye Bank, Waripamo-Owei Dudafa, an aide to former President Goodluck Jonathan and four companies.

    The companies are: Pluto Property and Investment Company Ltd, Seagate Property Development and Investment Company Ltd, Transocean Property and Investment Company Ltd and Globus Integrated Service Ltd.

  • Court adjourns Patience Jonathan’s $15.591m case till Jan 19

    The Federal High Court in Lagos yesterday adjourned hearing of former First Lady Mrs. Patience Jonathan’s suit seeking to unfreeze her accounts till January 19

    The accounts are said to have $15.5 million in them.

    Justice Mohammed Idris adjourned to enable the former first lady’s lawyers to respond to an objection by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC).

    Mrs. Jonathan is praying the court to discharge a no debit order placed on the accounts.

    The judge on May 8 held that Mrs. Jonathan and other parties must give oral evidence on the money’s ownership.

    According to him, all the defendants’ counter-affidavits contain disputed facts that could not be decided without oral evidence.

    He directed them to file pleadings, which they did.

    The EFCC had urged the court not to unfreeze the accounts because the money was suspected to be “proceed of crime”.

    Jonathan’s former aide Waripamo-Owei Dudafa, Pluto Property and Investment Company Ltd, Seagate Property Development and Investment Company Ltd, Trans Ocean Property and Investment Company Ltd and Avalon Global Property Development Ltd are the other respondents.

    The companies, through their representatives, had pleaded guilty to laundering the money last September 15 when they were arraigned before Justice Babs Kuewumi of the same court.

    They were charged along with Dudafa, Briggs and a banker, Adedamola Bolodeoku, for allegedly laundering the money.

    Unlike the companies, Dudafa, Briggs and Bolodeoku pleaded not guilty to the 17-count charge.

    In a supporting affidavit to her application, Mrs. Jonathan’s aide, Sammie Somiari, said Dudafa helped the former first lady to open the accounts around March 2010.

    The deponent claimed Mrs. Jonathan was the sole signatory to the accounts and that she had no relationship with the companies.

     

     

  • Alleged $15.5m laundering: Court reserves ruling on motion to reverse Patience Jonathan’s guilty plea

    A Federal High Court in Lagos on Wednesday reserved ruling on a motion seeking to set aside the guilty plea of four firms allegedly used to launder 15.5 million dollars belonging to a former First Lady, Dame Patience Jonathan.

    The motion was filed by a lawyer, Amajuoyi Azubuike Briggs, who is standing trial alongside former aide to ex-President Goodluck Jonathan, Waripamo-Owei Dudafa, and Adedamola Bolodeoku.

    The trio is charged with concealing a total sum of 15.5 million dollars which is said to have formed part of the proceeds of an unlawful act through various banks in Nigeria.

    They were charged along four firms namely — Pluto Property and Investment Company Ltd, Seagate Property Development and Investment Company Ltd, Trans Ocean Property and Investment Company Ltd and Avalon Global Property Development Company.

    While the three accused pleaded not guilty to the charges, the four firms had pleaded guilty through their representatives — Friday Davies, Agbor Baro, Dioghowori Frederick and Taiwo Ebenezer.

    Justice Babs Kuewumi had convicted the firms on the alleged offence following a review of the facts of the case by prosecution after their plea.

    Dissatisfied, Dudafa and Briggs had filed separate applications seeking to reverse the plea before the court.

    The applications were, however, dismissed by Justice Kuewumi on the grounds that the same issues were being canvassed by the accused at the Court of Appeal.

    Meanwhile, the Court of Appeal in its judgement on June 15, had directed the lower court to hear Briggs’ motion seeking to reverse the firm’s plea.

    At the resumed hearing of the case on Wednesday, the EFCC prosecutor, Mr Rotimi Oyedepo, sought the court’s permission to continue with the examination-in-chief of the first prosecution witness.

    The request was, however, opposed by the defence lawyers.

    Briggs’ lawyer, Mr Ige Asemudara, drew the court’s attention to the Appeal Court’s judgement which ordered the hearing of his client’s motion challenging the guilty plea of the four firms.

    He also disclosed that he had filed another motion seeking to set aside the conviction of the four firms.

    In his own submissions, lawyer representing the four firms, Chief Mike Ozekhome (SAN) also notified the court of the existence of a motion he filed since May 8 seeking to set aside the guilty plea of the firms.

    According to him, the court cannot proceed to trial when the plea of the firms which are in joint trial with the other accused persons is in contention.

    Lawyers to the other accused, Gboyega Oyewole (SAN) and Joseph Okodieme, also aligned themselves with the submissions.

    Justice Kuewumi then opted to hear Briggs motion as directed by the Court of Appeal.

    Moving the motion, Asemudara, argued that the plea entered into by the firms where his client is secretary, did not comply with Sections 477 (3)and 478 of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act (ACJA) 2015.

    Ashemudara added that the prosecution had yet to file any counter-affidavit against the motion.

    In his response, EFCC’s lawyer, Oyedepo, urged the court to rely on its record with regards to the service of the charge on the directors of the firms as well as their appearances before the court.

    He added that in view of the firms’ plea which was made by the directors and upon the admission of the facts reviewed by the prosecution leading to the firms conviction, the motion is a violent abuse of court’s process.

    Oyedepo said that the applicant (Briggs) equally lacked the ‘locus standi’ to complain about the plea of his co-accused because the plea of an accused person is peculiar and personal to him or her.

    The court has fixed Nov. 22 for hearing of other pending applications in the case.

     

     

    NAN

  • SERAP to Saraki, Dogara: ‘Withdraw directives to banks to unfreeze Mrs Jonathan’s accounts’

    Socio-Economic Rights and Accountability Project (SERAP) has urged the President of the Senate Dr Bukola Saraki and Speaker of the House of Representatives Mr Yakubu Dogara to “Urgently withdraw the patently unconstitutional directives to some banks to unfreeze former First Lady Mrs Patience Jonathan’s accounts.”

    The organization said that, “the directives to banks to unfreeze Mrs Jonathan’s accounts amount to mingling of the executive and judicial powers in the National Assembly. Checks and balances should ideally help contribute to the rule of law and strengthening our democratic dispensation but if one branch of government grows too strong and overreaching the country might be in trouble.”

    In a statement signed on Sunday by SERAP deputy director Timothy Adewale the organization said that, “It’s an affront to our constitutional democracy for the National Assembly to turn itself into a tool for checkmating the country’s justice system, especially the prosecution of grand corruption. Rather than helping Mrs Jonathan’s desire to achieve justice for what she may consider to be violations of her human rights, such directives are doing exactly the opposite and politicising the criminal justice process.”

    The Senate had last week decided that Mrs Jonathan’s accounts should be unfrozen, saying that some of the accounts including with Stanbic IBTC, First Bank, Union Bank, Diamond Bank, Fidelity Bank, Ecobank and Bank Zenith Bank were frozen based on some administrative lapses. It claimed that the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) used the banks to close the accounts without due process of law. The House of Representatives in September gave a similar directive to the banks to free the former first lady’s blocked accounts.

    But SERAP said that, “Nigerians are concerned about their lawmakers’ thirst for power, and about the National Assembly aggrandizing its legislative powers without sufficient checks and constitutional scrutiny and validity. The National Assembly ought to focus the exercise of its legislative powers solely on making laws for the peace, order and good government of our country, addressing only matters of prime national concern, and when necessary, checking the excesses of the executive branch.”

    The statement reads in part: “The directives purportedly unfreezing the accounts of Mrs Jonathan will not give the public the confidence that the National Assembly will change its ways and embrace the rule of law.”

    “The National Assembly should not show itself as incapable and unwilling to address the concerns of Nigerians about its operations and apparent lack of transparency. These kinds of interventions by the National Assembly could portray our lawmakers in the eyes of Nigerians as forgetting what they are in Abuja to do.”

    “The Senate and House of Representatives should advise Mrs Jonathan to seek appropriate judicial remedies if she feels the criminal justice mechanisms have violated her human rights. That’s the essence of the rule of law, separation of powers and checks and balances. The supposed directives to banks have unfortunately again put the reputation of the National Assembly at stake.”

    “What Nigerians want and deserve is a balanced sharing of constitutional powers for the sake of the public good, and not ‘Imperial National Assembly’, a National Assembly that sits on its throne in Abuja and treats Nigerians as serfs in their fiefdoms.”

    “If the body that makes law also controls its execution, implementation and interpretation, it can effectively tailor the laws to help itself and its friends and hurt its perceived enemies. It can thwart the virtue of impartial general law-making by rendering it a tool for singling out.”