By Onyewuchi Ojinnaka
Justice Mojisola Olatoregun of a Federal High Court sitting in Lagos, Nigeria on Thursday called for oral evidences by parties in a suit by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC), seeking final forfeiture of about $8.4 million, and N7.4 billion found in accounts linked to a former first Lady, Dame Patience Jonathan.
According to Justice Olatoregun,the call for oral evidences by parties in a motion for final forfeiture of the sums was sequel to conflicting affidavit evidences which she said can best be resolved if the parties are called upon to give oral evidences.
TheNiche had reported that on April 20, 2018, the EFCC had through an exparte motion before Justice Olatoregun, secured an interim order for forfeiture of the aforementioned sums.
In the suit, the Commission mentioned/joined Dame 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 respondents.
On October 29, 2018, EFCC counsel, Rotimi Oyedepo, had moved his motion for final forfeiture of the sums, praying that same be finally forfeited to the Federal Government.
In the same vein, defence counsel, Messrs Ifedayo Adedipe (SAN), Chief Mike Ozekhome (SAN), and Ige Asemudara had respectively moved their processes in opposition to the motion for final forfeiture.
On January 15, 2019, the court admitted electronic evidences presented by respondent counsel, which depicted video exhibits showing various business outfits of the third and sixth respondents
Thereafter, the court then adjourned for judgment.
While reading the judgment on Thursday, the judge on one hand, first dismissed an application by counsel to the respondents, seeking to set aside the interim forfeiture orders made on April 20, 2018.
In dismissing the application, court held that it was satisfied that the requirement for the grant of the interim orders was met by the EFCC, adding that it was clear that at the time the interim order was made, there was no pending suit elsewhere.
On the other hand, the court could not make a pronoucement on the final forfeiture or otherwise. It held that giving its ratio on the motion for final forfeiture, it finds the affidavit evidences conflicting, adding that same can only be resolved if the parties concerned are called upon to give oral evidences.
The court held thus: “The applicant relied on two grounds:
(1) That the court has the statutory power under Section 17, to grant the reliefs sought;
(2) That the monies are suspected to be proceeds of an unlawful activity or unlawful activities, diverted from the Federal Government of Nigeria,”
The court asked if having regards to the provisions of Sections 17 of the Advance Fee Fraud and Other Fraud Related Offences Act, as well as the available facts before the court, the applicant has made out a case for final forfeiture of the sums.
The judge noted various processes filed by parties to the suit which include, affidavits, counter affidavits, further affidavits, reply affidavits, written addresses, as well as exhibits .
The court then held :
“I have examined the issues raised on both sides and I came to the conclusion after exhaustively going through the affidavits filed by parties, and I found the affidavits conflicting on material facts.
“I believe in the circumstance, that the court cannot rely on its own opinion alone; the conflict must only be determined or resolved by the evidences of parties themselves, particularly as it relates to the source of the funds.
“I believe parties should be heard and cross examined on this issue.
“Parties are accordingly called upon to give oral testimonies in support of the case presented, “
After the court’s pronouncement, it adjourned the case until March 14 and 15 for oral evidences and pronoucement on the final forfeiture.
