A Federal High Court in Abuja has postponed the hearing of a lawsuit filed by former Minister of Petroleum Resources, Diezani Alison-Madueke, challenging the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission’s (EFCC) orders for the final forfeiture of her seized assets.
The hearing was originally scheduled as the 15th item on the cause list, but it could not proceed due to the absence of the presiding judge, Justice Inyang Ekwo. As a result, the court has rescheduled the hearing for December 7, and the case is marked as FHC/ABJ/CS/21/23.
Justice Ekwo had previously fixed the hearing date for June 21. Both Mr. Benson Igbanoi, who appeared for Alison-Madueke, and M.D. Baraya, the EFCC’s counsel, had regularized their processes in the suit at that time.
The EFCC had planned to conduct a public sale of assets seized from Diezani Alison-Madueke, believed to be proceeds of crime and ordered to be permanently forfeited to the Federal Government. The auctioning of these assets commenced on January 9.
Former EFCC Chairman Abdulrasheed Bawa had disclosed that $153 million and over 80 properties had been recovered from Alison-Madueke. She is alleged to have left Nigeria for the United Kingdom after her tenure as the petroleum minister from 2010 to 2015 during the administration of former President Goodluck Jonathan.
In her suit, Diezani Alison-Madueke sought an order to extend the time within which she could seek leave to apply to the court for an order to set aside the EFCC’s public notice for the sale of her property.
The former minister, represented by Chief Mike Ozekhome, SAN, sought five orders from the court, arguing that the various orders were made without jurisdiction and should be set aside because she was not given fair hearing in all the proceedings leading to the orders.
“The various court orders issued in favour of the respondent and upon which the respondent issued the public notice were issued in breach of the applicant’s right to fair hearing as guaranteed by Section 36 (1) of the 1999 Constitution, as altered, and other similar constitutional provisions,” she said.
Dieziani argued that she was neither served with the charge sheet and proof of evidence in any of the charge nor any other summons howsoever and whatsoever in respect of the criminal charges pending against her before the court.
She further argued that the courts were misled into making several of the final forfeiture orders against her assets through 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.
”This honourable court has the power to set-aside the same ex debito justitiae, as a void order is as good as if it was never made at all.
“The orders were made without recourse to the constitutional right to fair hearing and right to property accorded the applicant by the constitution.
“The applicant was never served with the processes of court in all the proceedings that led to the order of final forfeiture,” she said, among other grounds given.
But the EFCC, in a counter affidavit deposed to by Rufai Zaki, a detective with the Commission, urged the court to dismiss her application.
Zaki, who was a member of the team that investigated a case of criminal conspiracy, official corruption and money laundering against the ex-minister and some other persons involved in the case, said investigation had clearly shown that she was involved in some acts of criminality.
He said Alison-Madueke was therefore charged before the court in charge no: FHC/ABJ/CR/208/2018.
“We hereby rely on the charge FHC/ABJ/CR/208/2018 dated 14th November, 2018 filed before this honourable court and also attached as Exhibit C in the applicant’s affidavit,” he said.
The EFCC operative, who said he had seen the ex-minister’s motion, said most of the depositions were untrue.
He said contrary to her deposition in the affidavit in support, most of the cases which led to the final forfeiture of the contested property “were action in rem, same were heard at various times and determined by this honourable court.”
Zaki added that the courts had ordered the Commission to do a newspaper publication inviting parties to show cause why the said property should not be forfeited to the Federal Government, before final orders were made.
