By Ayo Kehinde
The Lagos Division of the Court of Appeal has nullified the final forfeiture order issued on the assets of former Nigeria’s Central Bank Governor, Godwin Emefiele, to the Federal Government.
The Federal High Court in Lagos had, in its ruling on November 1, 2024, granted the application by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) for the final forfeiture of Emefiele’s assets.
The forfeited assets included two fully detached duplexes located at No. 17B, Hakeem Odumosu Street, Lekki Phase 1, Lagos; an undeveloped land measuring 1,919.592 square metres with survey plan No. DS/LS.340 at Oyinkan Abayomi Drive (formerly Queens Drive), Ikoyi, Lagos; a bungalow at No. 65A Oyinkan Abayomi Drive, Ikoyi, Lagos and a four-bedroom duplex at No. 12A, Probyn Road, Ikoyi, Lagos.
Others included an industrial complex under construction on 22 plots of land in Agbor, Delta State; eight units of uncompleted apartments on a plot measuring 2,457.60 square metres at No. 8A Adekunle Lawal Road, Ikoyi, Lagos and a fully detached duplex on a plot measuring 2,217.87 square metres at No. 2A Bank Road, Ikoyi, Lagos. The trial court also ordered the forfeiture of $2,045,000 and share certificates in Queensdorf Global Fund Limited to the Federal Government.
The EFCC had argued that the properties were reasonably suspected to have been acquired with proceeds of unlawful activities.
Dissatisfied with the lower court’s decision, Emefiele, represented by his legal team led by Olalekan Ojo (SAN), appealed the decision.
Marked CA/LAG/CV/1051/24, the appeal raised five issues for determination: “Whether the trial judge adequately evaluated the totality of the affidavit evidence before granting the EFCC’s motion for the final forfeiture of the listed properties.
“Whether the trial judge erred in not holding that the appellant had established an interest in the listed properties, thereby warranting a refusal of the forfeiture application.
“Whether it was proper to dismiss the appellant’s motion for a stay of proceedings in both the civil and criminal cases against the appellant.
“Whether the trial court ought to have struck out the EFCC’s counter-affidavit for not being provided for under Section 17 of the Advance Fee Fraud Act and whether the trial judge was correct in declining jurisdiction to entertain the appellant’s application for a stay of proceedings.”
While the anti-graft agency opposed the appeal, a three-member panel of the appellate court, in a split decision of two to one, delivered on April 9, 2025, set aside the judgment and ordered a retrial of the case at the lower court.
The lead judgement read by Justice Anka, held that, “These funds are the legitimate earnings of the appellant as provided and the contention of the appellant as I do comprehend is that from his earnings from the days he was at Zenith Bank up to his career as CBN governor for 10 years in office, he can be able to afford the said properties in contention.”
According to PUNCH, a certified true copy of the judgement, stated that the facts presented before it by the parties before the trial court were very conflicting and highly disputed as regards the legitimacy of the properties in contention as provided.
Justice Anka therefore held that “There is in my view a need to call for further oral as well as documentary evidence where possible and for parties to cross-examine the deponents and witnesses.”
The court further held that from the contentions of the appellant “he deposed to the fact that at his exit as the Managing Director of Zenith Bank, his severance package was in excess of a 1,750,000,000, while his acquired Zenith Bank share was in the values of a 500,000,000 and then as CBN Governor his annual remuneration is at a N350,000,000 per annum, with quarterly reimbursements of N75m, excluding estacodes paid for foreign trips which is at $6,285,000 at $5,000 per day.
“Hence, the initial processes filed lat the trial court tried via affidavit evidence shall metamorphose into a trial to be conducted via oral testimonies for parties to provide their various witnesses and to be cross-examined by both counsel on either side, to prove the legitimacy or otherwise of the properties in contention and I so order. In effect, the court hereby sets aside the final forfeiture order made by the trial court on 1st November 2024.
“Hence, the final forfeiture against the said sum of $2,045,000 to the FGN is hereby affirmed. From the totality of all I’m stating, the appeal succeeds in part, considering the final forfeiture is set aside while the parties are given the opportunity to call oral evidence at the trial court.
“It is also hereby ordered that the case be remitted to the trial court for a rehearing.”
Justice Mohammed Mustapha agreed with the judgment of Justice Anka, stating, “I am in total agreement with the conclusions arrived, and have little or nothing to add to this impeccable write-up, except to say, by way of emphasis, that l am not aware of any legal impediment to the purchase of property by one party for and on behalf of another, to be held in trust for that other.”
He further held that the income of the appellant was more than enough to buy up the properties in question and even more.
Speaking further, he stated that he also noticed that Emefiele declared his and his wife’s code of conduct forms, attached to the counter affidavit, indicating his and his wife’s properties and assets.
The judge noted that while the assets declared are for the years 2014 and 2019, the properties sought to be forfeited permanently covered the period 2020 to 2023, “which means that the appellant’s code of conduct forms filled in 2014 or 2019 could not have conceivably covered properties bought in 2020.
“It is absurd, therefore, to expect the appellant to have declared properties acquired in 2020 in forms filed in 2014. The declaration the prosecution ought to have properly queried is, therefore, the next declaration to follow in 2023.
“Now, in view of the parallel pendency of both criminal and civil action, common sense, logic and the law dictate that the criminal action ought to be disposed of before the civil one can even be initiated.
“In the circumstances, therefore, I too allow this appeal in part, the final forfeiture having been set aside, thus affording parties the opportunity of calling witnesses to buttress their respective positions at the lower court.
“Accordingly, I hereby order that the case be remitted back to the Chief Judge of the Federal High Court, for re-hearing by any judge other than Hon Justice D. I. Dipeolu. l abide by the consequential orders.
