Bello: Court restores EFCC forfeiture order on 14 properties, N400m

The Court of Appeal in Lagos has reinstated an interim forfeiture order of 14 properties and the sum of N400 million linked to former governor of Kogi State, Yahaya Bello. A three-member panel of justices on Wednesday set aside the order of a Federal High Court presided over by Justice Nicholas Oweibo, which had on […]

The Court of Appeal in Lagos has reinstated an interim forfeiture order of 14 properties and the sum of N400 million linked to former governor of Kogi State, Yahaya Bello.

A three-member panel of justices on Wednesday set aside the order of a Federal High Court presided over by Justice Nicholas Oweibo, which had on April 26, 2023, struck out the interim order for the forfeiture of the assets.

In a lead judgment delivered by Justice Yargata Nimpar, the panel confirmed the EFCC’s position and held that the lower court erred when it struck out the suit, despite finding that the former governor had failed to show the legitimate origin of the funds used to acquire the properties.

The appellate court also affirmed that the trial judge misapplied Section 308 and ordered the restoration of the preservation order.

The panel, therefore, directed that the suit for the final forfeiture of the properties should proceed accordingly.

The high court had, in a suit filed by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC), on February 22, 2023, granted the application to seize the assets, except that the former governor or interested parties show cause why the order should not be made permanent.

However, in the ruling on April 26, 2023, the court set aside the order, relying on sections 9 and 10 of the Proceeds of Crime (Recovery and Management) Act, 2022, ordered the forfeiture of a hotel apartment community, Burj Khalifa at Plot 160 Municipality NO 345-7562, Sky View Building No 1, Property No 401, Floor 4, Dubai U.A.E, “as well as the funds reasonably suspected to have been derived from unlawful activities.”

However, the EFCC lawyers led by Rotimi Oyedepo (SAN), appealed against the ruling, arguing that the trial court erred in law by applying the immunity clause to a proceeding that concerned properties reasonably suspected to be proceeds of crime.

The EFCC contended that the immunity provided under Section 308 does not extend to assets linked to alleged unlawful activities and that the trial court failed to follow judicial precedents, including EFCC v. Fayose (2018) LPELR-44131(CA) and Fawehinmi v. IGP (2002) 7 NWLR (Pt 767) 606, which provided clarity on the scope of the immunity clause.