Diezani challenges EFCC’s forfeiture orders, demands return of seized property
The Former Minister of Petroleum, Diezani Alison-Madueke, on Monday urged the Federal High Court in Abuja to order the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission to retrieve her seized assets from their current buyers.
The former minister specifically requested that the court direct the anti-graft agency to recover the seized properties from the individuals or entities to whom they were sold.
Alison-Madueke made this request through an amended application filed on her behalf by her lawyer, Chief Mike Ozekhome (SAN), before Justice Inyang Ekwo.
She sought an order to set aside the EFCC’s public notice, which served as the basis for the public auction of her assets.
She further asked the court to declare the public auction conducted by the EFCC as a violation of statutory provisions, including the EFCC Act of 2004 and the Proceeds of Crime Recovery and Management Act of 2022.
Alison-Madueke argued that the auction breached her right to fair hearing as guaranteed under Section 36(1) of the 1999 Constitution (as amended).
Additionally, she sought an order restraining the EFCC from disposing of her properties as listed in the public notice and asked the court to vacate the notice issued by the EFCC, which was based on various judgments and orders in favor of the agency.
She contended that the final forfeiture orders issued against her properties violated her proprietary rights due to a lack of jurisdiction and denial of fair hearing.
The former minister also requested an extension of time to seek the court’s leave to vacate, discharge, or set aside the public notice issued by the EFCC.
The EFCC had announced in a public notice that Alison-Madueke’s assets were up for sale between January 9 and January 13, 2023. Following this announcement, Alison-Madueke initiated legal action against the EFCC.
In an originating motion marked FHC/ABJ/CS/21/2023, filed on January 6, 2023, she sought an extension of time to apply for an order to set aside the public notice and prevent the auction of her assets.
However, in a counter-affidavit filed on March 14, the EFCC urged the court to dismiss the suit.
The affidavit, deposed to by litigation officer Oyakhilome Ekienabor, refuted several claims made by Alison-Madueke.
Ekienabor stated that extensive investigations into the former minister’s activities during her tenure had led to criminal proceedings against her in various courts, including the Federal High Court.
He cited charges filed in 2017 and 2018 as part of the evidence against her and explained that the properties were sold in compliance with final forfeiture orders issued by the Federal High Court on July 9, 2019, and September 10, 2019.
According to Ekienabor, these forfeiture orders were not issued in violation of Alison-Madueke’s rights to fair hearing, and the properties were disposed of in accordance with due process.
“The cases leading to the forfeiture orders were actions in rem, and the decisions are binding on all,” he said.
He added that during the forfeiture proceedings, the court had instructed the EFCC to publish a notice inviting interested parties to show cause why the properties should not be forfeited.
Ekienabor further stated that Alison-Madueke was represented during one of the proceedings, but the court ultimately issued the final forfeiture orders after considering submissions made by her counsel.
Justice Ekwo, on February 17, granted the former minister’s request to amend her suit following a motion by her counsel, Godwin Iyinbor.
At the resumed hearing on Monday, Iyinbor informed the court that an amended originating motion had been filed and served on the EFCC on February 20. He requested an adjournment to respond to the commission’s counter-affidavit, which was filed on March 14.
Justice Ekwo emphasized the need to expedite the case, considering its long duration since it was filed in 2023.
The EFCC’s counsel, Divine Oguru, apologized for the delay in responding and assured the court of readiness at the next hearing.
“We will be ready to go on in the next adjourned date my lord,” he said
The judge subsequently adjourned the matter to March 27 for hearing.
