Court To Hear EFCC’s Objection Against Diezani’s Asset Reclamation Suit On May 29

The EFCC, in its preliminary objection dated and filed on 27 March by Tayo Oyetibo, requested the court to strike out the former minister’s suit for lack of jurisdiction.

The anti-corruption agency argued that Alison-Madueke had failed to serve a pre-action notice on the EFCC prior to initiating the suit, as required by law. Consequently, the EFCC claimed the court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the matter.

Meanwhile, Alison-Madueke, in an amended suit filed by her lawyer, Mike Ozekhome (SAN), sought an order to set aside the EFCC’s public notice, which formed the basis of a public auction of her assets.

The former minister named the EFCC as the sole respondent in her originating motion, marked FHC/ABJ/CS/21/2023.

In her suit, she asked the court to order the EFCC to retrieve her seized assets from those to whom they were sold.

She further sought an order extending the time to seek leave to apply for setting aside the EFCC’s public notice, arguing it was issued unlawfully.

On 17 February, the presiding judge, Justice Inyang Ekwo, granted Alison-Madueke’s request to amend her suit. This followed a motion moved by her counsel, Tayo Iyinbor, which was not opposed by the EFCC’s lawyer, Divine Oguru.

In the amended suit, the former minister asked the court to declare that the EFCC’s public sale of her assets, conducted pursuant to final forfeiture orders, breached statutory provisions, particularly the EFCC Act, 2004, and the Proceeds of Crime Recovery and Management Act, 2022.

She argued that the sale also violated her right to a fair hearing as guaranteed by Section 36(1) of the 1999 Constitution (as amended).

The former minister sought an injunction restraining the EFCC from disposing of the listed properties and an order vacating the public notice authorising their sale.

The EFCC, in its counter-affidavit, prayed the court to dismiss the suit, asserting that the sale of the assets was conducted in line with final forfeiture orders issued by the Federal High Court on July 9, 2019 and September 10, 2019.

The EFCC maintained that the forfeiture orders were obtained through due process and did not infringe upon the applicant’s right to a fair hearing.

At the resumed sitting, Iyinbor informed the court that he required seven days to respond to the EFCC’s preliminary objection. However, Oyetibo stated that he had other pending applications to address before the substantive matter could proceed.

Justice Ekwo adjourned the case until 29 May for the hearing of both the preliminary objection and the substantive suit. The judge warned that any absent party on the next hearing date would have their processes deemed as adopted.

“If the matter cannot proceed on that day due to the absence of any party, the counsel for that party will face personal penalties,” Justice Ekwo ruled.