The Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) has urged the Federal High Court in Abuja to disregard the recent acquittal of former Minister of Petroleum Resources, Diezani Alison-Madueke, by a United Kingdom court.
The anti-graft agency argued that the UK judgment has no bearing on the ongoing forfeiture proceedings involving properties and other assets linked to the former minister.
The EFCC made the position known in a further counter-affidavit filed in response to Diezani’s application seeking to tender the June 17 judgment of the Southwark Crown Court in London. The UK court had discharged and acquitted her of allegations relating to bribery and corruption.
Justice Inyang Ekwo had earlier, on July 1, granted Diezani permission to present the UK judgment as evidence in the Nigerian proceedings.
However, the EFCC maintained that the proceedings in Britain were separate from the Nigerian case and had no effect on the final forfeiture orders under which the disputed properties were disposed of.
The commission told the court that the UK proceedings were not before any Nigerian court and were unrelated to the substantive suit currently before Justice Ekwo. It also asked the court to dismiss Diezani’s application and supplementary affidavit, describing some of the claims contained in them as misleading.
According to the EFCC, the properties involved in the case were covered by final forfeiture orders issued by Nigerian courts, which remain valid and have not been set aside.
The commission said the sale of the properties was carried out pursuant to forfeiture orders issued by Justice C.A. Obiozor of the Federal High Court on July 9, 2019, and another order made by Justice I.N. Oweibo on September 10, 2019.
It added that notices had been published in newspapers inviting interested parties to explain why the assets should not be forfeited before the final orders were made.
The EFCC therefore maintained that the properties were disposed of in accordance with due process and that the forfeiture orders remain legally enforceable.
Diezani, through her lawyer, Prof. Mike Ozekhome, SAN, is asking the court to order the EFCC to recover properties allegedly sold to third parties.
In her suit, marked FHC/ABJ/CS/21/2023, the former minister alleged that the commission began disposing of assets linked to her without giving her a fair hearing.
She further claimed that some of the final forfeiture orders were obtained through misrepresentation, suppression and non-disclosure of material facts.
Diezani also argued that she had not been convicted of any unlawful activity that could justify the forfeiture of her properties. She maintained that the courts lacked jurisdiction to make the orders without first hearing her.
She told the court that she had been outside Nigeria since 2015 while receiving medical treatment and was not served with relevant court processes. She also challenged the use of the civil standard of proof in the forfeiture proceedings.
The former minister further stated that she had three pending suits against the EFCC in Lagos and argued that the properties should not have been sold while the forfeiture orders were being challenged.
The EFCC, however, said criminal proceedings had also been instituted against Diezani in Nigerian courts following investigations into her activities while she served as a public official.
The commission cited charges in cases numbered FHC/ABJ/CR/208/2018 and HC/ADYL/56C/2017, filed before the Federal High Court and Adamawa State High Court respectively.
Justice Ekwo subsequently adjourned the matter until November 11 for the hearing of the pending applications.
READ ALSO:
- Hamzat Unveils 100-Point Manifesto, Promises 4,000 Buses, Affordable Housing, Better Healthcare In Lagos
- Ruto Secures Putin’s Promise To Stop Recruiting Kenyans Into Russian Military
- Kwankwaso Commends Tinubu Over New Military Battalion, Artillery Regiment In Kano
- Between Tinubu and his predecessors, who is truly responsible for poverty in Nigeria? | By Seunmanuel Faleye
- Nigeria, Russia Begin Talks To Replace 59-Year-Old Aviation Agreement
