The Lagos
Division of the Court of Appeal on Friday upheld an order of interim forfeiture
to the federal government of $5.8 million ($5,842,316) and N2.4 billion
(N2,421,953,522) traced to the accounts of the wife of former President
Goodluck Jonathan, Patience.
Mojeed
Owoade, who gave the lead judgement, resolved the matter against Mrs. Jonathan
saying her application lacked merit.
A judge of
the Lagos Division of the Federal High Court had on April 26 last year granted
an order of interim forfeiture of the $5.8 million traced to Mrs. Jonathan’s
account number 211001712 domiciled with Skye Bank Plc on the grounds that the
money was reasonably suspected to be proceeds of unlawful activities.
The judge
had also granted an order of interim forfeiture of N2.4 billion the Economic
and Financial Crimes Commission said was surreptitiously kept by the former
first lady in an account number 202200760 domiciled with Eco Bank Plc in the
name of La Wari Furniture and Baths Limited.
The EFCC had
filed the application for the forfeiture of the monies to the Nigerian government.
During the
hearing, Musbau Abubakar, an EFCC operative, deposed to an affidavit before the
court stating that Mrs. Jonathan opened the Skye Bank account on February 7,
2013.
Mr. Abubakar
also told Justice Olatoregun that the former First Lady made several United
States Dollars cash deposits into the account through a former Special
Assistant to former President Jonathan, Waripamo-Owei Dudafa, and a State House
steward, Festus Iyoha.
Mr. Dudafa
is facing trial over allegations of money laundering before a federal judge.
Mrs.
Olatoregun had granted the prayers of the EFCC and directed Mrs. Jonathan to
show cause why the money should not be finally forfeited to the Federal
Government.
But the
former first lady’s lawyers, Mike Ozekhome and Ifedayo Adedipe, both senior
advocates of Nigeria, approached the appellate court to set aside the order of
the lower court.
Mrs.
Jonathan’s lawyers also urged the Court of Appeal to declare as
unconstitutional the provisions of Sections 17 of the Advance Fee Fraud and
Other Fraud Related Offences Act 2006.
One of the
appellate court judges in July last year recused himself from hearing the
appeal for “personal reasons.”
0 Comments