Court fixes Oct 7 for hearing on final forfeiture of Patience Jonathan’s $5.78m, N2.4bn

Court fixes Oct 7 for hearing on final forfeiture of Patience Jonathan money

A Federal High Court in Lagos on Monday adjourned till October 7, to hear a motion seeking the final forfeiture of the $5.78million and N2.4billion, linked to a former First Lady, Patience Jonathan. 

Justice Tijani Ringim fixed the date after taking arguments from counsel to the parties in the matter.

Advertisement

The Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) initially filed the application for forfeiture in 2017 before another judge, Mojisola Olatoregun (now retired).

The defendants in the suit were Mrs Jonathan alongside LA Wari Furniture and Bathes.

Advertisement
Advertisement
ding GIF

According to the EFCC, the funds belongs to the ex-First Lady, and were said to be warehoused by Skye Bank Plc and Ecobank Plc respectively.

Justice Olatoregun on April 26, 2017, ordered the temporary forfeiture of the monies, following an ex-parte application by the EFCC.

Advertisement

The judge’s order was affirmed by both the Court of Appeal and Supreme Court.

But before the conclusion of hearing on the final forfeiture on the said sums in 2019, Justice Olatoregun retired from the Bench.

Advertisement

The matter was also stalled when the Chief Judge of the court re-assigned it to Justice Chuka Obiozor for hearing, who was later transferred to the court’s Benin division.

At the resumed hearing of the matter on Monday, EFCC counsel, Rotimi Oyedepo, narrated to Justice Ringim on the developments of the matter so far.

Advertisement

Mr Oyedepo explained that the application for its final forfeiture was previously moved before Justice Olatoregun but the trial judge didn’t deliver judgment before retiring.

“It was upon that fact that the file was transferred to the registry where it was reassigned to the former judge and subsequently your Lordship.”

Advertisement

But, Counsel to Mrs Jonathan, Ifedayo Adedipe SAN and  Gboyega Oyewole SAN, also informed the judge that the case was adjourned for mention because it was coming up for the first time before him.

The counsel to the second respondent, Mike Ozekhome SAN, also applied that the case be adjourned on the premise that it was starting afresh and that he intended to file an application challenging the constitutionality of the entire proceedings.

Advertisement

Mr Ozekhome prayed the court to grant a long adjournment to enable him file an application that the case is supposed to start afresh.

But Mr Oyedepo opposed the application, on the grounds that there is a procedure enshrined in section 17 of the Advanced Fee Fraud and other related offences Act, which the EFCC had compiled with except the last step which is a motion for final forfeiture.

Advertisement

The EFCC counsel urged the judge to study the proceedings of February 17, 2021 where the former judge adjourned hearing of the motion for final forfeiture till April 13, which could not hold due to the Judiciary Staff Union of Nigeria (JUSUN) strike.

He prayed further that should the court be inclined to grant an adjournment, it should be for the motion of final forfeiture.

Advertisement

In his ruling, Justice Ringim held that a proceeding of this nature is a special one and cannot be truncated by any application.

“The court cannot adjourn the matter because of an application which is yet to be filed. However, due to the nature of the application as hinted by the second respondent, the court will not shut the application out.

Advertisement

“This court will adjourn for the hearing of the motion for final forfeiture that is pending.

“Consequently, the second respondent is hereby ordered to file the application if any within 14 days from today and the plaintiff will have one week to respond. It will be heard alongside the motion for final forfeiture.”

Advertisement

He adjourned further proceedings till October 7.

Advertisement

leave a reply