The Federal High Court, Abuja, on Friday, set aside an interim forfeiture order on 40 landed properties linked to a former Deputy Senate President, Ike Ekweremadu, and his wife, Beatrice.
The court, which had issued the order on 4 November, 2022, but ruled on Friday that the application for forfeiture filed by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) was not brought in good faith and ought to be struck out.
The News Agency of Nigeria (NAN) reports that the judge, Inyang Ekwo, further held that the EFCC failed to disclose material facts about the matter.
Mr Ekwo noted that EFCC had launched the proceedings against Mr Ekweremadu, who is being held in the United Kingdom (UK) over an illegal harvesting allegation, despite knowing about his predicament which would hinder him from defending himself.
He said the commission did not deny writing a letter to the Crown Prosecution Service in the UK to furnish them with information about the lawmaker.
“I do not think that the desired objective of the legislature in enacting the provision of Section 17 of the Advance Fee Fraud and Other Related Offences Act (AFFOROA), 2006 relied upon by the respondent (EFCC) in initiating the proceeding to obtain an ex-parte order of interim forfeiture order was for the provision to be used in any circumstance where the person affected is not in a position to defend himself or show cause as required,” the judge said.
He said that despite the fact that the ex-parte order in this case was obtained subject to the provision of Section 17 of the AFFROA 2006, the validity of the order and indeed the entire proceeding leading to the order would be affected by non-disclosure, suppression or misrepresentation of material facts.
The judge also disagreed with the EFCC that since Mr Ekweremadu had failed to file an application to show cause, the court should go ahead with the order for final forfeiture of the assets.
“I do not think that this position is correct. The requirement to file affidavit to show cause pursuant to section 17 of the AFFOROA, 2006 will hold strong in a normal situation where the person required to do so is not fettered by any act, condition or situation that amounts to a deprivation of the right to show cause as required by law.
“In this case, the respondent (EFCC) wrote Exhibit SIE 2 (a letter) to the Crown Prosecution Service in the United Kingdom which letter was used as evidence to deny Senator Ike Ekweremadu bail in the criminal proceedings.
“At the same time, the respondent filed an ex-parte application for interim forfeiture which upon order being made thereon required Senator Ike Ekweremadu and his wife to show cause in Nigeria why an order for final forfeiture ought not to be made.
“I have been asking myself the question repeatedly: How can a citizen of Nigeria who is incarcerated outside the country to the knowledge of the respondent, be expected to show cause in an action in Nigeria brought by the respondent?
“In other words, how do you help to tie down a man and initiate a fight and demand that the same man you have helped to tie down must defend himself?
“This in my opinion, is an unconscionable act. The act of the respondent clearly shows that this action was brought in bad faith.
“In law, bad faith entails dishonesty of belief or purpose,” the judge said.
He said, “On the whole, I find that the application for forfeiture, going by the facts of this case has not been brought in good faith and ought to be struck out.”
Ekweremadu’s son’s role
He held that Mr Ekweremadu’s son, Llyod, had done the right thing by bringing an application to set aside the proceedings initiated in bad faith and suppression of material facts.
“Once more, this court needs to apply the test of reasonableness of the act of the respondent in initiating the proceeding leading to the interim forfeiture order.
“I have done so and found this applicant ex-parte wanting in that respect.
“Consequently, I make the following orders:
“An order is hereby made setting aside the interim forfeiture order of the properties of Senator Ike Ekweremadu and his companies made by this court on 4th day of November, 2022, upon the ex-parte Originating Motion filed by the Economic and Finance Crimes Commission (EFCC) on 27 July, 2022.
“The entire proceeding initiated by the respondent is hereby set aside,” Justice Ekwo declared.
Background
It was reported that Mr Ekwo had, on 4 November, 2022, granted the anti-graft agency’s ex-parte motion, seeking an interim order of forfeiture of some property of Mr Ekweremadu, who is a former deputy debate president.
The landed properties comprised 15 in Abuja, 10 in Enugu (Mr Ekweremadu’s home state), one in Lagos, two in the United Kingdom, three in the United States, and nine in Dubai in the United Arab Emirates (UAE).
The judge, who granted the motion, had ordered the agency to publish the interim forfeiture order of the property in a national daily within seven days.
The judge directed anybody who had interest in the forfeited property to indicate within 14 days of the publication on why the property should not be permanently forfeited to the Federal Government.
The reporter reports that Mr Ekweremadu’s oldest child, Lloyd, the Anambra State government and a company, Uni-medical Healthcare Limited had, on 5 December, 2022, appeared in court as parties interested in the seized property.
Lloyd, in a motion on notice marked: FHC/ABJ/CS/1242/2022 and filed by his lawyer, Adegboyega Awomolo, prayed the court for an order setting aside the Interim forfeiture order on his father’s property and companies.
Lloyd, in a four-ground argument, said EFCC’s claims in its ex-parte originating motion “deliberately and fraudulently omitted very critical facts/evidence, which negate the granting of the application.”
He argued that the motion which the anti-graft agency commenced the action was filed in absolute bad faith.
Mr Ekweremadu, who is currently in detention in London, and his wife, are facing a charge of alleged organ harvesting against David Ukpo, said to be an underage.
(NAN)
