A suit seeking final forfeiture of about 8.4 million dollars and N7.4 billion found in bank accounts linked to a former First Lady, Dame Patience Jonathan has been adjourned to Jan. 15, 2019, for further hearing.
Justice Mojisola Olatoregun of the Federal High Court, Lagos, had granted the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission, EFCC, an interim order for the forfeiture following an ex-parte application on April 20.
The crime body had joined Patience Jonathan and six others as respondents in the suit. The others are: Globus Integrated Services Ltd., Finchley Top Homes Ltd., Am-Pm Global Network Ltd., Pagmat Oil and Gas Ltd., Magel Resort Ltd. and Esther Oba as respondents in the suit.
Video evidence by the defence scheduled for Thursday could not take place because the court did not sit.
Counsel to the EFCC, Rotimi Oyedepo, had told the court at the last adjourned date that he had an application for final forfeiture dated May 8.
According to him, the application supported with an affidavit deposed to on May 20, by Orji Chukwuma, an EFCC operative, seeks an order of the court for a final forfeiture of sums of money listed in the application.
Oyedepo urged the court to grant the application for final forfeiture.
However, Ifedayo Adedipe, SAN, counsel to the first respondent (Patience Jonathan), urged the court to refuse the application on the grounds that the applicant’s counsel had not placed sufficient facts before the court to warrant a final order arguing that the first respondent was neither invited by the EFCC nor prosecuted.
He argued, further argued that the applicant failed to take the preliminary steps but headed to seek an order of forfeiture insisting the practice fell short of prosecutorial procedures.
Adedipe, argued that the depositions by the applicant that the funds represented proceeds of unlawful activities had not been substantiated, noting that Section 36 of the Constitution provided that a person should not be convicted of an offence, unless defined and punishment prescribed. He pointed out that there was no crime known as “statutory suspicion.”
The Senior Advocated maintained that the onus rested on the EFCC to prove that the respondent had such amounts of money, and that they were obtained under false pretences or fraud.
READ ALSO: Police foiled 233 robbery cases from Nov. 2017 to Sept. 2018 in Lagos- Edgal
He therefore submitted that the application was vindictive, urging the court to dismiss it.
Counsel to the third, fourth, fifth and sixth respondents, Mike Ozekhome, argued that the EFCC application was premature going by the provisions of the Advanced Fee Fraud Act.
He submitted that the third, fourth, fifth and sixth respondents filed affidavits to show cause and that it was only when same has been argued and the court finds no merit in it that the EFCC can be justified and better placed to bring the application.
He also argued that there were exhibits attached to the affidavits to support there claims.
