Court Sets Date To Rule On Abacha Family’s Suit Against FG

The Federal High Court in Abuja, under Justice Peter Lifu, will on June 27, deliver judgment in a suit by the family of the late head of state, General Sani Abacha.

Naijaonpoint understands that the family of the late head of state is contesting the revocation of their father’s property in the Maitama District of Abuja.

Justice Lifu, on Wednesday, announced the judgment date for the suit brought forth by Hajia Maryam Abacha, the wife of the late General Abacha, and her eldest surviving son, Mohammed Sani Abacha.

Listed as defendants in the lawsuit are the Minister of the Federal Capital Territory FCT, the Federal Capital Development Authority (FCDA), the President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, and Salamed Ventures Limited, designated as 1st to 4th in that order.

According to the Leadership, the judge set the date for the legal dispute between the Abacha family’s lawyer, Dr. Reuben Okpanachi Atabo, a Senior Advocate of Nigeria, SAN, and the defendants’ lawyer, Dr. James Ogwu Onoja.

The Abacha family, represented by Maryam Abacha and Mohammed Sani Abacha, requested the Court to nullify and set aside the purported revocation of the Certificate of Occupancy of the property belonging to the late General Sani Abacha, located in the Maitama District.

The family claimed that the certificate of occupancy, marked FCT/ABUKN 2478 and covering plot 3119, which was issued on June 25, 1993, had been illegally and unlawfully revoked by the defendants.

In their statement of claims, the Abacha family stated that the FCT, under Nasir El-Rufai’s leadership, had instructed them to submit the Certificate of Occupancy they possessed for re-certification.

They claimed that the 2nd plaintiff, Mohammed Sani Abacha, promptly complied with the directive by delivering the Certificate of Occupancy to the FCDA and receiving an acknowledgment copy.

The plaintiffs claimed that while they were waiting for a new Certificate of Occupancy to be issued to them, Mohammed Abacha received a letter on February 3, 2006, notifying them that the Certificate of Occupancy had been revoked without any reason stated in the letter.