The Abuja Federal High Court on Friday quashed an interim confiscation order for 40 real estate properties linked to a former vice president of the Senate, Ike Ekweremaduand his wife, Beatriz.
The court, which issued the order on November 4, 2022, but ruled on Friday that the forfeiture application filed by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) was not filed in good faith and should be set aside.
The Nigerian News Agency (NAN) reports that the judge, Inyang Ekwo, further held that the EFCC failed to disclose material facts on the matter.
Mr Ekwo noted that the EFCC had initiated proceedings against Mr Ekweremadu, who is detained in the United Kingdom (UK) on an illegal harvesting charge, despite being aware of his situation which would prevent him from defending himself.
He said the commission did not deny having written a letter to the UK’s Crown Prosecution Service to provide them with information about the lawmaker.
“I do not believe that the intended objective of the legislature in enacting the provision of Section 17 of the Advance Fee Fraud and Other Related Offenses Act (AFFOROA), 2006, which the defendant (EFCC) relied upon in initiating proceedings to obtain an ex-parte provisional confiscation order was for the provision to be used in any circumstance where the affected person is not in a position to defend himself or show the required cause,” the judge said.
It said that even though 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 up to the order would be affected. for non-disclosure. , suppression or misrepresentation of material facts.
ALSO READ: Peter Obi talks about Ekweremadu’s arrest in the UK
The judge also disagreed with the EFCC that since Mr. Ekweremadu had not submitted an application to show cause, the court should go ahead with the final forfeiture order of the assets.
“I don’t think this position is correct. The requirement to present an affidavit to demonstrate cause in accordance with article 17 of the AFFOROA of 2006 will remain in a normal situation in which the person required to do so is not impeded by any act, condition or situation that constitutes a deprivation of right to freedom. show cause as required by law.
“In this case, the defendant (EFCC) wrote Exhibit SIE 2 (a letter) to the Crown Prosecution Service in the UK, which letter was used as evidence to deny Senator Ike Ekweremadu bail in the proceedings. penal.
“At the same time, the respondent filed an ex parte application for provisional forfeiture which, upon issuance of the order, required Senator Ike Ekweremadu and his wife to show cause in Nigeria why a final forfeiture order should not be issued.
“I have been repeatedly asking myself the question: How can a Nigerian citizen who is imprisoned outside the country, to the best of the defendant’s knowledge, be expected to show cause in an action in Nigeria brought by the defendant?
“In other words, how do you help tie up a man and start a fight and demand that the very man you helped tie up fight back?
“This, in my opinion, is a disproportionate act. The defendant’s act clearly shows that this action was filed in bad faith.
“In law, bad faith implies dishonesty of belief or purpose,” the judge said.
He said: “Overall, I consider that the forfeiture application, given the facts of this case, has not been made in good faith and should be set aside.”
The role of Ekweremadu’s son
It held that Mr. Ekweremadu’s son, Llyod, had done the right thing in filing an application for annulment of the proceeding initiated in bad faith and suppression of material facts.
“Once again, this court must apply the test of reasonableness of the defendant’s act when initiating the proceedings that led to the provisional confiscation order.
“I did and found this ex parte applicant wanting in that regard.
Accordingly, I give the following orders:
“An order is hereby issued annulling the provisional forfeiture order of the properties of Senator Ike Ekweremadu and his companies issued by this court on November 4, 2022, on the ex parte origin motion filed by the Economic Crimes Commission and Financial (EFCC) on July 27, 2022.
“The entire proceedings initiated by the defendant are hereby annulled,” Judge Ekwo stated.
Bottom
NAN reports that Mr. Ekwo, on November 4, 2022, granted the ex parte motion of the anti-corruption agency, seeking an interim order of confiscation of some property of Mr. Ekweremadu, who is a former deputy chair of the debate.
The real estate holdings included 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 upheld the motion, had ordered the agency to publish the provisional confiscation order for the property in a national newspaper within seven days.
The judge ordered anyone with an interest in the seized property to indicate within 14 days of publication why the property should not be permanently seized from the Federal Government.
NAN reports that Mr. Ekweremadu’s eldest son, Lloyd, the Anambra State Government and a company, Uni-medical Healthcare Limited, appeared in court on December 5, 2022 as interested parties in the seized property.
Lloyd, in a motion on notice marked: FHC/ABJ/CS/1242/2022 and filed by his attorney, Adegboyega Awomolo, asked the court for an order to vacate the provisional forfeiture order for his father’s property and businesses.
Lloyd, in a four-point argument, said that the EFCC’s assertions in its ex parte origin motion “deliberately and fraudulently omitted very critical facts/evidence, which negates the grant of the request.”
He argued that the motion that the anti-corruption agency initiated the action was filed in utter bad faith.
Mr Ekweremadu, who is currently in custody in London, and his wife are facing a charge of alleged organ harvesting against David Ukpo, who is said to be a minor.
(YAYA)