Graft War: Court Orders Final Forfeiture Of 52 Houses To FG

0

ABUJA – Justice Alexandra Owoeye of the Federal High Court sitting in Ikoyi has or­dered the final forfeiture of 52 terrace and maisonette units located in the Lekki area of Lagos.

The properties, located at Mer­cyville Estate, Covenant Way, off New Road, Ilasan, Lagos, were recovered from Fielddreams Lim­ited, Ifeanyi Nweke, and Amex Savings and Loans Limited.

The judge gave the order, fol­lowing a Motion on Notice filed and argued by the Lagos Zonal Directorate 2 of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commis­sion, EFCC, through its counsel, Franklin Ofoma.

The Commission had, on Au­gust 14, 2024, secured the inter­im forfeiture of the properties through an order granted by Justice Akintayo Aluko, follow­ing an ex parte application filed by the EFCC through its counsel, Ofoma.

The order was made in favour of one Dr. Kennedy Okonkwo, a real estate developer and Chief Executive Officer of Capital Gar­dens Limited.

In his ruling, Justice Aluko also directed the Commission to publish the interim forfeiture order in a national newspaper, inviting any interested party to show cause why the properties should not be finally forfeited to the Federal Government of Ni­geria.

Following the publication of the order, the respondents filed an affidavit to show cause why the court should not grant the final forfeiture of the properties.

Initially, in paragraphs 16 to 25 of their affidavit, the respondents stated that the funds used to de­velop the 52 terrace and maison­ette units were derived from the sale of a portion of land acquired through the sale of 29 terrace and maisonette units valued at One Billion, Nine Hundred Million Naira (₦1,900,000,000.00).

They, however, subsequently made a u-turn, accusing the 3rd to 19th applicants of failing to complete the various terrace and maisonette units.

This contradicted their earlier affidavit evidence in which they had stated that they used the pro­ceeds from the sale to complete the furnishing and interior dec­oration of the remaining units and that construction had been completed in 2020.

At the proceedings, Ofoma, while moving the application for the final forfeiture of the proper­ties, informed the court that the Commission had fully complied with the court’s order regarding the publication of the interim forfeiture.

He further told the court that the application was supported by a 31-paragraph affidavit deposed to by Afolabi Seyi Oladele, a liti­gation officer in the Legal Depart­ment of the EFCC.

According to him, the proper­ties were reasonably suspected to be proceeds of unlawful ac­tivities, and he urged the court to grant the application for their final forfeiture.

Ofoma further submitted that the second respondent, Nweke, is a criminal fugitive, adding that he “has refused to appear before Justice R.A. Oshodi and Justice Okunuga in Charge No. ID/25771C/2025 and Charge No. ID/25769C/2025 for his arraign­ment and to defend the charges if he believes that he did not commit any of the offences con­tained in the charges against him.”

He further informed the court that there were two subsisting warrants of arrest against the second respondent, adding that he had jumped theadministra­tive bail earlier granted him by the Commission over thealleged offences.

After listening to the submis­sions of both the applicant and therespondents, Justice Owoeye held that “Premised on the fore­goingposition of the law, I hold that since this court cannot pick and choosewhich of the ev­idence given by Respondents to believe, it mustconsequently re­ject the entire affidavit evidence placed before it by the 1st-3rd Re­spondents.

“Accordingly, I reject the 1st- 3rd Respondents’ Affidavit to Show Cause/Counter-Affida­vit to the Applicant/Respondent’s Motion onNotice for Final Forfei­ture filed on the 9th of February, 2026, but deemed properly filed on the 28th of April, 2026.

“The consequence is that there is no opposition to the Mo­tion filed by the 1st and 2nd Appli­cants for the grant of an order of final forfeiture.”

The judge further held that: “Premised on the foregoing, I find that having demonstrated grounds for reasonable suspi­cion that the properties in ques­tion are the proceeds of unlawful activities, the applicants are en­titled to the reliefs sought in this application. I therefore resolve the sole issue in this application in favour of the Applicants.”

In the final analysis, the court held that “Having resolved the sole issue in this application in favour of the applicants, I hold that this application has merit and ought to be granted. Accord­ingly, I grant the relief sought in this application as prayed.”