… Wants forfeited money returned

From Godwin Tsa, Abuja

Embattled former Managing Director of the Nigerian National Petroleum Corporation (NNPC), Andrew Yakubu has  approached a Federal High Court, Kano State Division, with a suit seeking to set aside the forfeiture order granted the Federal Government.

Yakubu, in the suit marked FHC/ICN/CS/24/2017,  asked the court to order the return of  the  $9,772,800 and £74,000,000 belonging to him on the grounds that  the court made the forfeiture order without jurisdiction.

In the said motion, his counsel, Ahmed Raji (SAN) argued that the Kano state  division of  the court lacks the territorial jurisdiction to entertain the matter, being one related to a crime alleged to have been committed in Abuja, “outside the territorial jurisdiction of this noble court.” 

 Raji further argued that according to Section 45 of the Federal High Court Act, an offence shall be tried only by a court exercising jurisdiction in the area or place where the offence was committed. 

“No aspect of the perceived offence in respect of which the order of February 13, 2017 was made, was committed within the Kano judicial division of this court.”

He said the federal government lacks the locus standi to seek the interim order of the court granted on February 13, 2017.

“By section 28 of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission Act (EFCC) Act, only the commission, that is, the EFCC has the vires to seek an order for the interim forfeiture of property under the Act. The power of this court to make interim forfeiture order (s) pursuant to sections 28 and 29 of the EFCC Act, 2004 is applicable only to alleged offences charged under the EFCC Act and not to offences cognisable under any other law.  

“The ex-parte order of this court, dated February 13, 2017, was made in respect of alleged offences under the Independent Corrupt Practices and other Related Offences Commission Act (hereinafter “ICPC Act”) and not the EFCC Act, as prescribed by Section 28 and 29 thereof. 

“The conditions precedent to the grant of an interim forfeiture order under sections 28 and 29 of the EFCC Act were not complied with by the Applicant before the order was made”, Raji argued in the motion.  

He further contended that “the combined effect of sections 28 and 29 of the EFCC Act is that a charge alleging infractions against the provisions of the EFCC Act ought to be brought against a suspect, before the powers of this court under sections 28 and 29 of the EFCC Act, to order interim forfeiture of property, can be actuated.” 

He said wthout a formal charge, no prima facie evidence can be established in order for the provisions of section 28 and 29 of the EFFCC Act to be actuated.

“In the instant case, no charge was brought against the Respondent/Applicant before the provisions of sections 28 and 29 of the EFCC Act were activated to grant the ex-parte order of February 13, 2017.