Cleric asks judge to vacate order of final forfeiture on N70m Abuja house
A cleric, Mr. Nuhu Muhammed, has prayed Justice James Omotosho of the Federal High Court in Abuja to set aside the order of final forfeiture made, forfeiting an Abuja property worth N70 million to the Federal Government.
Muhammed, in a motion on notice filed by his counsel, Mike Enahoro-Ebah, told Justice Omotosho that he is the bonafide owner of the property.
Muhammed, who said he is an Islamic scholar and a realtor based in Okene, Kogi, alleged that the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) got the order by misrepresentation and suppression of germane facts.
Justice Omotosho had, on Feb. 18, made an order for final forfeiture of the property located at No. 12, 5th Avenue, 59 Crescent, Gwarimpa in Abuja.
The judge gave the order following a motion on notice, marked: FHC/ABJ/CS/2431/2025, for final forfeiture moved by Emenike Mgbemele, counsel to the EFCC.
Mgbemele had told the court that the commission had complied with the earlier court order to publish the interim forfeiture order in a national daily for interested person(s) to show cause why the final order should not be made with respect to the property.
He said the property, comprising one unit of 4 bedroom detached bungalow with pent house and two-room boys quarters, was reasonably suspected to be proceeds of unlawful activities.
In the motion dated Feb. 9 but filed Feb. 10 by Ekele Iheanacho, SAN, the lawyer gave six grounds why the motion should be granted.
Also, an EFCC’s investigator, Alozie Andrew, in the affidavit he deposed to, said a petition was received from the Anti-Corruption Network regarding the property.
He said on receipt of the petition, it was assigned to his team for discreet investigation.
The investigator said the N70 million used in the purchase of the property was traced to the Kogi State internally Generated Revenue Service (KGIRS).
He said that Sen. Oseni Yakubu, while serving as the Chairman of KGIRS approved payments to Bespoque Business Solutions Ltd to which he was the sole signatory.
Andrew alleged that Yakubu directed that the sum of N70 million he received as kickback from the consultant, be applied to purchase the said property.
The officer averred that the funds, received as a kickback by Yakubu, was paid to EFAB Properties Ltd in two tranches of N25 million and N45 million.
However, Muhammed, in the application dated and filed on Feb. 24 by Enahoro-Ebah, disagreed with the averments.
The Islamic scholar sought two reliefs.
These include an order vacating or setting aside the order of final forfeiture made on Feb. 18, forfeiting the property to the Federal Government, “on the grounds of fundamental breach of his right to fair hearing, procedural irregularity, concealment of truth and misrepresentation of facts.”
He also sought an order directing the EFCC to release forthwith to him all the documents seized from him in respect of the property.
Giving 22 grounds why his application should be granted, his lawyer submitted that Muhammed is the bonifade owner of the property and had been in quiet and peaceable legal possession of same since August 2017.
He said on Jan. 13, the court granted an ex-parte interim order of forfeiture in respect of the said property upon the commission’s application.
Enahoro-Ebah stated that the said order was published on Jan. 23 edition of Business Day Newspaper, inviting any interested party to show cause within the stipulated period of 14 days why a final forfeiture order should not be made.
According to him, the publication was made in a Business Day Newspaper which is a business newspaper meant primarily for those in the business community and those interested in business rather than national dailies such as Daily Trust and Vanguard Newspapers.
The lawyer argued that Muhammed primarily resides in Okene, Kogi, where Business Day Newspaper does not ordinarily circulate.
He said his client only became aware of the interim order of forfeiture when his attention was drawn to the motion for final forfeiture on Feb. 12, after the expiration of the 14-day period stipulated therein and a day after the said motion for final forfeiture was taken.
He said the EFCC had invited Muhammed with respect to the property in the past and thus had his contact information but deliberately failed to serve him the interim order of the court or the motion on notice filed Feb. 10.
Besides, the lawyer said the commission was aware that Muhammed had a tenant in the property and that any notice pasted on the premises or served on the tenant would be promptly brought to his attention.
Enahoro-Ebah said Muhammed, upon becoming aware of the proceedings, promptly instructed him to approach the court with all requisite applications, including a motion for extension of time within which to show cause and leave to file an affidavit to show cause.
He said this was so because additional time was required to collate documentary evidence substantiating the legitimate ownership of the property by the interested party/applicant.
He said on Feb. 6, relevant court papers were filed, served on the EFCC, transmitted to the registry of the court and were duly received and acknowledged on the same date.
Enahoro-Ebah said on Feb. 18 when the matter came up for ruling on the commission’s application for final order of forfeiture, he drew the court’s attention to their filed documents.
He, however, said that due to administrative lapses, Muhammed’s processes could not be found in the court’s file.
“Consequently, the court proceeded to deliver its ruling granting the order of final forfeiture,” he said.
The lawyer argued that the instant application is premised on the fundamental breach of the applicant’s constitutionally guaranteed right to fair hearing under Section 36(1) of the 1999 Constitution (as amended).
He argued that the final forfeiture order was obtained “in violation of the principles of natural justice, particularly the audi alteram partem rule, and contrary to the procedural safeguards enshrined in Section 17(4) and (5) of the Advance Fee Fraud and Other Related Offences Act, 2006.”
He submitted that the anti-graft agency concealed facts in obtaining the order.
He urged the court to grant the application in the interest of justice so as to prevent irreparable harm and miscarriage of justice.
Muhammed, in the affidavit he deposed to, said Sen. Yakubu was appointed as the chairman of Kogi Internally Generated Revenue Service (KGIRS) as a result of his sincere, earnest and effectual fervent prayers.
The cleric said the appointment was also as a result of separate acts of devotion, costly offerings, sacrifices and obligatory vow fulfilment, all to Yakubu’s acknowledgement and approval.
He said in fulfilling his vow, Yakubu offered to pay him in 2017 for his services and asked how the payment should be effected.
According to him, I opted not to be paid in cash as I feared I would utilise the money for other clients and to solve other problems without having anything to show for it.
“Hence, I informed him of my desire to acquire a landed property in Abuja-FCT particularly from Efab Properties Ltd at their Gwarinpa Estate,” he said.
The Islamic scholar said Yakubu paid for the property and was given to him as a “gift to offset all his outstanding indebtedness to me at that material time.”
Muhammed, who said he had been in quiet and peaceable legal possession of the property since August 2017, prayed the court to grant his application.
But Andrew, in a counter affidavit he deposed to, prayed the court to dismiss Muhammad’s application.
According to him, Exhibit EFCC 5 which is the statement of Senator Yakubu confirms that the senator paid for the property with proceeds of unlawful activity under the instructions of the former Governor, Yahaya Bello.
Justice Omotosho adjourned the matter until April 15 for hearing.(NAN)