Former Minister of Petroleum Resources, Mrs. Diezani Alison-Madueke, has approached the Federal High Court in Abuja, begging it to stop the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission, EFCC, from selling off all the properties seized from her.
The erstwhile minister in the legal action she filed through a team of lawyers, led by Chief Mike Ozekhome, SAN, equally prayed the court for an order directing the anti-graft agency to retrieve from persons (natural or corporate), to whom it had sold off any of the properties.
She told the court that the EFCC had, pursuant to a notice it issued in 2023, and acting in breach of her fundamental right to fair hearing, commenced a public sale by auction, assets linked to her.
According to the ex-petroleum minister, the anti-graft agency based its decision to sell off the properties on final forfeiture orders it obtained from various courts in the country.
She told the court that despite EFCC’s claim that final order of forfeiture was granted against her seized properties, she was neither served with any charge and proof of evidence in respect of any criminal proceeding, nor summons relating to any matter pending before any court.
The Applicant accused the anti-graft agency of obtaining forfeiture orders against her through misrepresentations and concealment of facts.
“In many cases, the final forfeiture orders were made against properties which affected the Applicant’s interest, the courts were misled into making the final order of forfeiture against the Applicant, based on suppression or non-disclosure of material facts.
“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 thus 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,” she said.
The embattled former minister argued that the said forfeiture orders were made against her by courts that lacked the requisite jurisdiction, saying they were made without recourse to her constitutional right to fair hearing.
Insisting she was never served with relevant court processes in all the proceedings that led to the orders for final forfeiture of her assets, the Applicant said the EFCC was aware that she was not within the shores of Nigeria at all material times as she left to seek medical treatment since 2015.
“The Applicant did not have any access to newspapers circulating within Nigeria during this period as she was not in Nigeria at all material times relevant to this suit,” her counsel said.
She told the court that though EFCC alleged that the seized properties constituted proceeds of alleged unlawful activities, “till date, the Applicant has not been convicted of any unlawful activities to warrant the forfeiture of her properties and assets.
“The courts, in granting the final order of forfeiture in a matter that is said to flow from criminal activities and which are criminal in nature, and without any conviction of the Applicant, granted the order of final forfeiture on minimum proof based on the civil standards of preponderance of evidence or balance of probability, instead of the strict proof applicable in criminal trials or civil proceedings where there is allegation of crime.
“Only a court of law can declare an act as constituting unlawful activities and there was no such order that had declared the alleged conduct of the Applicant to be unlawful.
“A mere allegation by the Respondent (EFCC) that the act or action of the Applicant constituted unlawful activities will not suffice in the circumstance.’’
The Applicant told the court that she had three suits against the EFCC pending before courts in Lagos, contending that “since the forfeiture orders are being challenged, no sale can validly take place as such would be rendered nugatory.”
Meanwhile, the EFCC, in response to the suit, filed a counter-affidavit to challenge its competence.
In the affidavit deposed to by one of its detectives, Oyakhilome Ekienabor, the anti-graft agency told the court that following extensive investigations into activities of the Applicant while she was a public servant, criminal proceedings were initiated against her in various courts.
It told the court that examples of such cases included a suit marked: FHC/ABJ/CR/208/2018, which was filed on November 2018, as well as another charge marked: HC/ADYL/56c/2017, filed on July 1, 2017, before a High Court in Adamawa State.
EFCC maintained that sale of properties that previously belonged to the former minister was conducted in execution of final forfeiture orders of Justice C.A. Obiozor of the Federal High on July 9, 2019, as well as another order by Justice I. N. Oweibo on September 10, 2019.
The commission told the court that before the assets were deemed to have been forfeited, it made newspaper publications inviting any person interested in the properties to show cause.”
“The final forfeiture orders pursuant to which the sale of the properties was conducted, are still in force and have not been set aside. The forfeited properties were disposed of in accordance with the due process of law,” EFCC added.
At the resumed proceeding in the matter yesterday, Mr. Godwin Iyibor, who appeared for the Applicant, requested for time to file his response to EFCC’s counter-affidavit which, he said, was served on him on March 14.
On his part, Mr. Divine Okoro, who represented the EFCC, told the court that the commission encountered some difficulties that made it impossible for it to file the process within the 14 days allotted to it.
Consequently, Justice Inyang Ekwo adjourned the matter to March 27 for definite hearing.
The trial judge noted that the case had been pending since 2023, even as he warned that the court would no longer entertain any excuses from the parties.
It will be recalled that the former minister had earlier filed a N100billion defamation suit against the EFCC which, she alleged, had authored and sponsored several publications that portrayed her as a treasury looter.
In the suit marked: CV/6273/2023, she insisted that the said defamatory publications brought her into “public ridicule, odium, contempt, derision and obloquy.”
