By Onyewuchi Ojinnaka
Hearing in the forfeiture suit filed before Justice Mojisola Olatoregun of a Federal High Court, Lagos by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC), seeking forfeiture of $8.4 million and N7.4 billion linked to former First Lady, Patience Jonathan and others was concluded on Wednesday by the parties, and judgement reserved for February 11.
It would be recalled that the EFCC had on April 20, 2018, via an ex-parte application, obtained an interim order for forfeiture of $8.4 million and N7.4 billion linked to the former First Lady.
Joined as respondents to the suit are Patience Jonathan, 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 first to seventh respondents.
EFCC counsel, Rotimi Oyedepo, had on October 29, 2018, moved a motion seeking final forfeiture of the said sums linked to Patience Jonathan.
At the resumed hearing of the case on Wednesday, having watched five videos displayed as evidence in the open court on Tuesday by the respondents, Oyedepo told the court that the Commission had filed and served a further affidavit to the respondents application to show cause.
Reacting to a further affidavit filed by the EFCC, Mike Ozekhome (SAN), counsel to the third to sixth respondents opposed paragraphs eight to twelve of the said affidavit on the ground that it raised new issues which was not contained in their application and prayed the court to expunge them from the EFCC’s further affidavit.
According to Ozhekhome, the prosecution had raised new issues in an attempt to discredit the videos instead of responding to the already existing issues as directed by the court on Tuesday.
“They brought entirely new issues outside what was watched in the video yesterday.
“They are just overreaching us. These are issues of preliminary objection. It is entirely an issue if at all between Federal Inland Revenue Service (FIRS) and the respondents and not the issue of proceeds of crime” Ozhekhome submitted.
Mr G.I. Abibio (SAN), Mr Gboyega Oyewole (SAN) and Mr Ige Asemudara; counsel to the first, second and seventh respondents respectively aligned themselves with the submissions of Ozhekhome.
But in a bench ruling by Justice Olatoregun on the observation/submission of Ozhekhome, she held that there was no need to expunge the paragraphs in the affidavit as no new issues had been raised.
Consequently, she directed Oyedepo to move his affidavit.In moving his affidavit, Oyedepo submitted that the former First Lady, had fraudulently diverted funds from Women for Change Initiative, a Non-Governmental Organisation, linked to her.According to him, most of the funds were fraudulently diverted from the NGO to other accounts of the second to sixth respondents, companies owned by the former First Lady.
Oyedepo said: “Women for change initiative was not added to this suit, we are not forfeiting their money, their funds have been converted and that is an unlawful act.”
He further told the court that the former First Lady had signed some of the transfer instructions personally and also signed using other people’s names and passport photographs.
“It is an unlawful act to seek for fund from men and women of honour and convert it to her personal use. That is “fraudulent” Oyedepo stressed.
He told the court that exhibit EFCC 6 shows that salary of Patience Jonathan was stopped in May 12, 2015 as a permanent secretary in Bayelsa State Government.
On the $8.4 million, Oyedepo said the first respondent had not been able to disclose to the court, the identities of those who gave the purported donations.
He stated that the EFCC had attached exhibits to show that the former First Lady was the sole signatory to the companies’ accounts.
“The funds we are seeking to forfeit from the second to sixth respondents are not funds from their legitimate businesses but those traced from the NGO,” Oyedepo submitted.
Concluding his submission, he prayed the court to grant the application for final forfeiture of the said funds as the respondents could not ascertain the legitimacy of the funds.
