The Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) Thursday told the Federal High Court sitting in Lagos that no one had come forward to lay claim to the $2.045million, linked to the embattled former governor of the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN), Mr. Godwin Ifeanyi Emefiele.
The Commission’s lawyer, Mr. Rotimi Oyedepo (SAN) stated this before Justice Deinde Isaac Dipeolu during proceedings seeking the permanent forfeiture of the money and seven landed properties and shares the EFCC believes the banker acquired through proxies.
During proceedings on August 15, 2024, the court ordered the interim forfeiture of the sum and property following an application filed and moved by Oyedepo, who led Chineye C. Okezie and Zeenat Atiku Bala in a suit marked FHC/L/MISC/500/24.
It also directed the EFCC to publish the interim forfeiture order in a national newspaper, which could be The Nation, Punch and the Guardian, to enable anyone interested in the properties to appear before the Court and show cause within 14 days, why the final order of forfeiture of the said properties should not be made in favour of the Federal Government.
The ruling followed the EFCC’s assertion via an ex parte application that the money and other items sought to be forfeited were reasonably suspected to be proceeds of unlawful activities.
At the next adjournment on September 12, the court adjourned for hearing of all applications on the forfeited monies and properties.
When the case resumed Thursday, Mr. Olalekan Ojo (SAN) entered an appearance for the respondent Emefiele, while C. Okpara appeared for parties seeking to join the suit.
The parties interested in joining the suit served two processes, asking the court to stay proceedings. It also filed an affidavit to show cause why the final order of forfeiture should not be made.
But the EFCC opposed Okpara, saying that it had filed a counter affidavit to the motion asking the court to stay proceedings.
Oyedepo said: “In line with the spirit of Section 17 of the Advance Fee Fraud Act, we have filed a motion for final forfeiture.
“In an order for interim forfeiture, it is well couched that whoever has an interest should file an application to show cause and not for a stay of proceedings.”
The senior lawyer prayed the court to refuse the “dangerous application to hear the motion for stay.”
He added: “As it were, there is $ 2.5 million recovered in the cause of investigation which nobody lay claim to.”
However, Mr Ojo countered the EFCC’s argument.
“At the last adjourned date 5th September, the court had slated this case for the hearing and determination of an application for stay.
“The court can’t reverse itself because the rule of consistency applies to both the court and counsels,” Ojo said.
After listening to the parties’ argument, Justice Dipeolu adjourned till October 4, for further proceedings.