JUST IN: SUPREME COURT AFFIRMS INTERIM FORFEITURE OF PATIENCE JONATHAN’S $8.4M
The Supreme Court on Friday affirmed an order of interim forfeiture made by the Lagos Division of the Federal High Court in respect of the sum of $8.4m linked to the wife of former President Goodluck Jonathan, Mrs. Patience Jonathan.
The five-man bench of the apex court led by Justice Dattijo Muhammad, in a unanimous judgment, dismissed the ex-First Lady’s appeal and directed her to return to the Federal High Court to show cause why the funds should not be permanently forfeited to the Federal Government.
The court also rejected her prayer to strike down the provisions of section 17 of the Advanced Fee Fraud Act and other Fraud related offenses Act, which was relied on by the Federal High Court to issue the order of interim forfeiture.
Upholding the decision of the Court of Appeal in Lagos, which had affirmed the Federal High Court’s interim order, Justice Kumai Aka’ahs, in the lead judgment of the apex court on Friday, held, “I do not find any reason to interfere with the decision of the lower court”.
Justice Aka’ahs added, ” Appellant is to go back to the trial court (the Federal High Court) to show cause why the interim order should not be made permanent.”
READ ALSO: CJN: COURT STOPS BUHARI GOVT FROM FREEZING ONNOGHEN’S BANK ACCOUNTS
The lead judgment was read on behalf of Justice Aka’ahs by Justice Ejembi Eko, also a member of the panel.
Other members of the five-man panel, Justices Muhammad, John Okoro, Eko, and Sidi Bage, agreed with Justice Aka’ah’s lead judgment.
The EFCC had last year approached the Federal High Court in Lagos with an ex parte application seeking the forfeiture of the sum of $8,435,788.84 and other various sums in various bank accounts linked to the wife of the former President.
The anti-graft agency, in its application anchored on section 17 of AFFA, had urged the court to grant an order of interim forfeiture of the funds which they said were suspected to be proceeds of unlawful activities.
Patience Jonathan and others including some organizations were joined in the said ex parte application as respondents.
Justice Mojisola Olatoregun of the Federal High Court in Lagos had on April 20, 2018, granted the ex parte order.
She also ordered the EFCC to publish the court’s order in any major national newspaper to enable the respondents or anyone interested in the funds to appear before the court to show cause within 14 days why the final order of forfeiture of the said funds should not be made in favor of the Federal Government of Nigeria.
Instead of appearing before the court to show cause as directed by the court, she had filed an appeal before the Court of Appeal to challenge the competence of the ex parte application filed by the EFCC to request the order of interim forfeiture.
She also in her appeal challenged the validity of the order made by the trial court and the constitutionality of section 17 of AFFA.
The Court of Appeal in Lagos dismissed her appeal prompting her to approach the Supreme Court to rule in her favour.
Arguing her appeal on December 12, 2018, her lead counsel, Mr. Ifedayo Adedipe (SAN), urged the Supreme Court to quash section 17 of AFFA which he contended negated the principles of fair hearing and presumption of innocence prescribed in the Constitution.
He said section 17 of AFFA which allowed assets to be seized from an individual without conviction, a hearing or a criminal charge whether temporarily or permanently was unconstitutional.
He also said the ex parte application which the trial court granted failed to disclose the alleged “unlawful activities”, the funds were linked to.
Responding, EFCC’s lawyer, Mr. Rotimi Oyedepo, said the appellant’s appeal was based on a misconception about the provision of section 17 of AFFA.
He said there was nothing unconstitutional about the said provision which he said provides an opportunity to the affected person to be heard on the temporarily forfeited assets.
The Supreme Court on Friday dismissed the appeal and upheld the decisions of the Federal High Court and the Court of Appeal.
Post Disclaimer
The opinions, beliefs and viewpoints expressed by the author and forum participants on this website do not necessarily reflect the opinions, beliefs and viewpoints of Anaedo Online or official policies of the Anaedo Online.