Court to hear Diezani’s suit challenging asset forfeiture October 6

A federal high court in Abuja has fixed October 6 to hear a suit filed by Diezani Allison-Madueke, former minister of petroleum resources, challenging the forfeiture of her assets to the federal government.

Godwin Iyinbor, Alison-Madueke’s lawyer, told the court that the case was for hearing when the matter was called, noting that the legal team has responded to the two motions that it was served.

Mofesomo Oyetibo, counsel to the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC), informed the court that he was appearing in the case for the first time.

Mohammed Umar, the presiding judge, also noted that the matter was coming up before him for the first time and adjourned the case to October 6 for hearing.

BACKGROUND

The EFCC had issued a notice of its plan to conduct a public sale of all assets seized from Alison-Madueke beginning on January 9, 2023.

In the motion marked FHC/ABJ/CS/21/2023 dated and filed January 6, the former minister argued that all the orders of forfeiture obtained by the EFCC were made without jurisdiction of the courts and ought to be set aside as a matter of justice.

Alison-Madueke said she was not given a fair hearing, notified about the proceedings leading to the orders, or served with the court processes.

“The various court orders issued in favour of the respondent and upon which the respondent issued the public notice to conduct a public sale of items contained in the public notice, most of which court the interest of the applicant, were issued in breach of the applicant’s right to fair hearing as guaranteed by Section 36 (1) of the 1999 Constitution, as altered, and other similar constitutional provisions,” she said.

“The several applications upon which the courts made the final order of forfeiture against the applicant were obtained upon gross misstatements, misrepresentations, non-disclosure, concealment and suppression of material facts, and this honourable court has the power to set aside same ex debito justitiae, as a void order is as good as if it was never made at all.

“The orders were made without recourse to the constitutional right to fair hearing and right to property accorded the applicant by the constitution.

“The applicant was never served with the processes of court in all the proceedings that led to the order of final forfeiture.”

EFCC’S COUNTER AFFIDAVIT

However, in a counter affidavit, Rufai Zaki, then counsel to the EFCC, described Alison-Madueke’s claims as “untrue”.

Zaki was a member of the team that investigated the case of alleged criminal conspiracy, official corruption and money laundering against the ex-minister and some other individuals.

The lawyer said investigations showed that Alison-Madueke was “involved in some acts of criminality”.

He said contrary to her deposition, most of the cases which led to the final forfeiture of the contested property “were action in rem; the same were heard at various times and determined by this honourable court”.

He said the courts directed the EFCC to publish notices in various newspapers, inviting interested parties to explain why the said property should not be forfeited to the federal government before final orders were issued.

Zaki argued that one Nnamdi Awa-Kalu represented the ex-minister in one of the forfeiture applications.

The EFCC investigator added that the order of forfeiture that the applicant is challenging was granted in 2017, noting that the ex-minister did not appeal it.