A Federal High Court in Lagos has fixed October 4 to rule on an application by a politician, Peter Nwaoboshi, seeking to vacate an order for the temporary forfeiture of his property.
The Economic and Financial Crimes Commission alleged that Nwaoboshi, a Peoples Democratic Party chieftain, laundered part of N1.5 billion, which he fraudulently obtained from Delta State.
The commission said the accused laundered the money through a company known as Suiming Nigeria Limited.
It is, therefore, praying the court not to discharge an interim order made by Justice Abdullazeez Anka, forfeiting the 12-storey building belonging to the Senator, which he allegedly bought with the money.
An EFCC operative, Garuba Abubakar, in a counter-affidavit to the Senator’s motion, averred that Nwaoboshi got a contract through his company, Bilderberg Enterprises Ltd, to supply new construction equipment for the state’s Direct Labour Agency at N1.5 billion.
He averred that the company allegedly imported and supplied used construction equipment, rather than brand new ones, in spite of receiving full payment.
EFCC said that Nwaoboshi, with the proceeds, bought the 12-floor building at 29, Marine Road, Apapa at the sum of N805 million, in the name of Golden Touch Construction Projects Ltd.
The commission said that the Senator had no “visible legitimate business venture to generate the amount spent in the purchase of the said property’’.
According to EFCC, Nwaoboshi has 20 bank accounts, which he operates in Nigeria, while companies directly linked to him maintain another 20.
The commission said that the interim forfeiture order granted on April 21 was to preserve the property from being dissipated.
EFCC said that contrary to the Senator’s claim that he sold the property to Suiming Ltd; the company actually belongs to him.
It, therefore, argued that it was in the interest of justice to refuse the application.
In his argument to discharge the forfeiture order, Nwaoboshi’s lawyer, Chief Anthony Idigbe (SAN), said EFCC concealed material facts in obtaining the order and did not comply with its Act.
Besides, he said the temporary forfeiture order violated the applicant’s right to own property, as guaranteed by Section 43 of the 1999 Constitution.
Idigbe said: “It becomes dangerous for citizens if the state can seize citizens’ property without a criminal proceeding against them.”
Responding, EFCC’s lawyer, Ekele Iheanacho, said the right to own property was not absolute and that a property can be temporarily forfeited during investigation, even if no charge has been filed.
Iheanacho said: “Arrest is not a condition precedent to forfeiture; the law allows that even though the person has not been arrested, the property can still be attached.
“We urge the court to reject this application and not to discharge the earlier order made by the court.”
Justice Anka adjourned the case until October 4 for ruling.