The Federal High Court in Abuja on Thursday, fixed May 29 for the hearing of the EFCC’s preliminary objection in a suit filed by former Minister of Petroleum, Diezani Alison-Madueke, to reclaim her forfeited assets.
Justice Inyang Ekwo fixed the date after the EFCC lawyer, Tayo Oyetibo, SAN, regularised his processes in the suit filed by the former minister.
The judge equally fixed the date for the hearing of the substantive suit.
Oyetibo informed the court that before the applicant (Diezani) took their matter, he had some housekeeping applications to take.
However, counsel who appeared for Diezani, Godwin Iyinbor, said the matter was slated for hearing and that subject to the convenient of the court, he was ready to proceed.
“On our part, we do not have any housekeeping application but the respondent does have. We are ready for hearing,’” he said.
Oyetibo then regularised their counter affidavit filed on March 20, which Iyinbor had also responded to on March 25.
The anti-graft lawyer equally informed the court of their preliminary objection dated March 27 and filed today.
Iyinbor, who confirmed being served with the preliminary objection, did not oppose the motion Oyetibo filed seeking for an extension of time to deem it properly filed but asked for a cost.
Iyinbor equally asked for seven days to respond to the EFCC’s objection just served on them.
Justice Ekwo subsequently adjourned the matter until May 29 for hearing of the preliminary objection and the substantive matter.
The judge warned that on that day, the process of any party that is absent from court would be deemed as adopted.
“If on that day, the matter can not go on because of a party, counsel to the party will be personally penalised,” the judge ruled.
The News Agency of Nigeria reports that the EFCC had, in the preliminary objection dated and filed today, March 27 by Oyetibo, prayed the court to strike out the suit for lack of jurisdiction.
Giving a two-ground argument, the EFCC submitted that Diezani failed to serve a pre-action notice on the commission prior to the commencement of the suit as required by law.
“The court therefore lacks the jurisdiction to entertain the suit,” it argued.
NAN reports that the former minister had prayed the court to order the EFCC to retrieve from persons, either natural or corporate, to whom it had sold off her seized assets or property.
Diezani, in an amended suit filed by her lawyer, Chief Mike Ozekhome, SAN, also sought an order setting aside the commission’s public notice issued and upon which it conducted the public sale by auction.
The anti-graft agency had, in the public notice, announced the sale of the former minister’s assets beginning from Monday, January 9, 2023 to Friday, January 13, 2023.
Also Read
- Alleged Firearm Possession: Pastor Adefarasin turns himself in to police
- NIDCOM welcomes diaspora advocate ahead National Diaspora Day
- Attacks: Benue Assembly urges urgent action to prevent another ‘Rwandan genocide’
- Teacher commits grammatical errors every 16 minutes, says professor
- CCC demands swift government action to halt Benue violence
Against the announcement, the former minister had, in the originating motion marked: FHC/ABJ/CS/21/2023, sued the EFCC as sole respondent.
In the suit dated and filed on Jan. 6, 2023 by Ozekhome, she sought an order extending the time to seek leave to apply to the court for an order to set aside the EFCC’s public notice issued to conduct a public sale on her property, among others.
Meanwhile, on February 17, Justice Ekwo granted Diezani’s request to amend the suit after the motion was moved by Iyinbor, who appeared for the ex-minister, and the EFCC’s counsel, Divine Oguru, did not oppose it.
NAN reports that in the amended suit, Diezani wants the court to declare that the public sale conducted by the EFCC between the said date which affected her proprietary were issued and/or conducted in absolute breach of statutory provisions, particularly the EFCC Act, 2004, the Proceeds of Crime Recovery and Management) Act, 2022.
She said it was also in absolute breach of her right to fair hearing, as guaranteed by Section 36 (1) of the 1999 Constitution (as altered), and other similar constitutional and statutory.
She sought an order restraining the EFCC from disposing of the said properties listed in the said public notice affecting the proprietary rights of the applicant.”
She also wants the court to make an order vacating the public notice issued by the EFCC which was based on various judgments/orders issued in favour of the commission “as final forfeiture orders made against properties and/or personal effects affecting the proprietary rights of the applicant for want of jurisdiction and lack of fair hearing.”
The former minister equally sought an order extending the time within which she may seek leave to apply to the court for an order to vacate, discharge and/or set aside the public notice issued by the commission, among others.
But the EFCC, in its counter affidavit, prayed the court to dismissed the suit.
In the affidavit deposed to by Oyakhilome Ekienabor, a litigation officer in the Law Firm of Messrs Tayo Oyetibo LP, said the depositions in Diezani’s affidavit in some of the paragraphs were untrue.
He said following extensive investigations into Diezani’s activities while she was a public officer, criminal proceedings commenced against her in various courts including the Federal High Court.
“These include charge No. FHC/ABJ/CR/208/2018 filed on 14th November, 2018, and Charge No. HC/ADYL/56c/2017 filed on 11th July, 2017 before the High Court of Adamawa State both of which are part of the bundle of documents attached as Exhibit C to the applicant’s affidavit.
He said contrary to the finer minister’s argument, the sale of the property which previously belonged to her was conducted in execution of the final forfeiture orders of the FHC made “on 9th July, 2019 (Coram Hon. Justice, CA. Obiozor) and 10th September 2019 (Coram Hon. Justice I.N. Oweibo).”
According to Ekienabor, the final forfeiture orders were not made in breach of the applicant’s right to fair hearing as alleged or otherwise.
“The cases which led to the final forfeiture of the contested properties were actions in rem, and the decisions made in those cases as touching on the properties are binding on the whole world.
“During the proceedings leading to the final forfeiture orders, the court ordered the respondent to do a newspaper publication inviting any person interested to show cause why the said properties should not be forfeited to the Federal Government.
“Further to the above, one Nnamdi Awa Kalu represented the applicant in reaction to one of the forfeiture applications pursuant to which the order in Exhibit EFCC 2 was made by OWEIBO, J. on 10th September, 2019.
“After considering the submissions made by counsel to the applicant in respect of her ownership of the properties in issue, the court subsequently made the final forfeiture orders in relation to the properties.
“The final forfeiture orders pursuant to which the sale of the properties was conducted are still in force and have not been set aside,” he said.
Ekienabor said the forfeited property were disposed of in accordance with the due process of law.
Follow The Eagle Online Channel on WhatsApp
