Ex-army director asks court to void N5bn shares forfeiture order, cites fair hearing breach

Umar Mohammed, former group managing director of the Nigerian Army Properties Limited (NAPL), has filed an application before a federal high court in Lagos seeking to set aside a final forfeiture order issued against his assets.

On Tuesday, Dehinde Dipeolu, a judge, had granted the request of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) for final forfeiture of 245,568,137 shares, valued at over N5 billion, linked to Mohammed and Kayode Filani, a businessman. 

The anti-graft commission had claimed that the shares were purchased with the proceeds of crime.

Hanatu Kofanaisa, counsel to the EFCC, told the court that Mohammed had been convicted by a special court martial on 14 out of 18 counts bordering on stealing and related offences.

She added that all statutory conditions for final forfeiture had been met, including the publication of the interim order in a national newspaper, with no objections filed against the application.

However, in a motion on notice filed on Friday, Mohammed, through his team of lawyers led by Olalekan Ojo, faulted the final furfieture proceedings and order granted.

The applicant noted that the suit was already pending before another judge, and there was no application or approval for it to be heard by a vacation judge.

He said the case was initially adjourned to October 8 for hearing the final forfeiture application before Chukwujekwu Aneke, a federal high court judge.

He also raised the issue of fair hearing, claiming that he was not issued any hearing notice before the final forfeiture proceedings. 

“There was no application for vacation hearing; in the alternative, the application for vacation hearing ought to have been by a motion on notice where the parties have been before the court,” the document reads.

“Non-service of hearing notice is a denial of the constitutional right of the party interested to fair hearing/fair trial.”

Mohammed also claimed that the court failed to consider the motion on notice and affidavits he filed on July 29 to show cause why the assets should not be forfeited before coming to the decision granting the order of final forfeiture.

Furthermore, the applicant claimed that the EFCC failed to file the application for final forfeiture “more than 60 days after the interim order of forfeiture was made by the honourable court on 7th May, 2025, in breach of the mandatory provision of section 1 of the Proceeds of Crime (Recovery and Management) Act, 2022”.

“The 60 days duration of the said ex parte of the honourable court made on 7th May, 2025, came to an end on the 6th July, 2025,” the document reads.

“…the preservation order upon which the interim forfeiture was made had expired, and the applicant/respondent did not make any application for extension of time of the preservation order, hereby not in compliance with Section 11 of the Proceeds of Crime (Recovery and Management) Act, 2022.

“That the final forfeiture order having been granted in favour of Nigerian Army Properties Limited is not in compliance with the provisions of Section 17 (1) Advanced Fee Fraud And Other Related Fraud Offences Act, 2006.”

Consequently, the applicant is praying the court to set aside “the entire proceedings of the honourable court in Suit No: FHC/L/MISC/404/2025 conducted on 26th August 2025 including the order for final forfeiture of the shares…”

He is also seeking an order of the court “restoring the affidavit to show cause filled on the 29th of July 2025, the motion on notice filed on the 29th of July 2025, and the application, if any, filed by the applicant/respondent for final forfeiture for hearing de novo or fresh hearing”.