An motion by Diezani Alison-Madueke, the former minister of petroleum, to amend her lawsuit contesting the order obtained by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) for the final forfeiture of her confiscated assets was granted by a Federal High Court in Abuja on Monday.
After Diezani’s attorney, Godwin Inyinbor, made the motion, Justice Inyang Ekwo allowed the request; however, Divine Oguru, the EFCC Counsel, did not object.
Diezani’s attorney, Inyinbor, told the court that the defendant had been properly served and that they had already filed a request to alter their original process when the issue was called.
Justice Ekwo allowed the former minister’s request to alter her suit as pleaded, and Oguru did not object.
The judge handed the EFCC 14 days from the date of service to reply, while Diezani was given five days to prepare and serve the amended processes.
After that, the issue was postponed until March 17 for additional discussion.
According to NAN, on November 21, 2024, Justice Ekwo scheduled a hearing on the motion to change the original procedure for Monday, the 17th.
The former minister had sued the anti-graft agency as the only respondent through her attorney, Chief Mike Ozekhome, SAN.
In the lawsuit filed under the case number FHC/ABJ/CS/21/2023, Alison Madueke requested an extension of time to petition the court for permission to revoke the EFCC’s public notice that was issued to hold a public sale on her property.
The former minister requested five instructions from the court in the motion, which was dated and submitted by her attorney on January 6, 2023.
These “ought to be set aside ex debito justitiae,” according to the former minister, who contended that the numerous orders were issued without jurisdiction.
She claimed that throughout the entire process that resulted in the orders, she was not given a fair hearing.
“The various court orders issued in favour of the respondent and upon which the respondent issued the public notice were issued in breach of the applicant’s right to fair hearing as guaranteed by Section 36 (1) of the 1999 Constitution, as altered, and other similar constitutional provisions,” she said.
She contended that she was not served with any summons pertaining to the criminal charges that were still ongoing against her in court, nor was she given the charge sheet or proof of evidence for any of the offenses.
She further claimed that by suppressing or failing to disclose important facts, the courts were duped into issuing many final forfeiture orders against her assets.
“The several applications upon which the courts made the final order of forfeiture against the applicant were obtained upon gross misstatements, misrepresentations, non-disclosure, concealment and suppression of material facts.
”The court has the power to set aside same ex debito justitiae, as a void order is as good as if it was never made at all.
“The orders were made without recourse to the constitutional right to fair hearing and right to property accorded the applicant by the constitution.
“The applicant was never served with the processes of court in all the proceedings that led to the order of final forfeiture,” she said, among other grounds given.
In a counter-affidavit submitted by commission detective Rufai Zaki, the EFCC urged the court to reject her application.
The inquiry had unequivocally demonstrated that she was involved in some criminal acts, according to Mr. Zaki, a member of the team that looked into a case of criminal conspiracy, official corruption, and money laundering against the former minister and several other parties involved in the case.
Accordingly, Mrs. Alison-Madueke was charged before the court in charge with case number FHC/ABJ/CR/208/2018, he added.
“We hereby rely on the charge FHC/ABJ/CR/208/2018 dated 14 November 2018 filed before this honourable court and also attached as Exhibit C in the applicant’s affidavit,” he said.
According to NAN, the EFCC agent said that the majority of the depositions in Mrs. Alison Madueke’s lawsuit were false.
He claimed that most of the cases that ultimately resulted in the confiscation of the challenged property “were action in rem, same was heard at various times and determined by this honorable court,” in contrast to her deposition in the affidavit filed in support of the litigation.
He pointed out that before final decisions were issued, the courts had mandated that the commission publish a newspaper requesting that parties provide justification for why the property in question shouldn’t be lost to the federal government.
In response to one of the forfeiture claims, Zaki said that a certain Nnamdi Awa Kalu spoke on behalf of the former minister.
“We humbly rely on the judgment of Hon. Justice I.LN. Oweibo dated 10th September, 2019 shown in Exhibit C of the applicant’s affidavit,” he said.
In contrast to her, the officer stated that the court had ordered the definitive forfeiture of the assets that were the subject of the current case in 2017, and that this judgment had not been overturned or set aside on appeal.
He claims that due process of law was followed in the disposition of the properties.
All assets seized as proceeds of crime, as mandated by courts to be permanently forfeited to the Federal Government, were to be sold in public by the anti-corruption agency.
On January 9, 2023, the auction process began for the confiscated assets, which were thought to include Alison-Madueke’s belongings.
Abdulrasheed Bawa, the EFCC’s suspended chairman, disclosed that the former minister had been found guilty of stealing over 80 properties and $153 million.
After leaving her position as the petroleum minister, which she held from 2010 to 2015 under former President Goodluck Jonathan’s administration, she was accused of fleeing to the UK and staying there.
She also filed a claim to recover N100 billion for a series of purported libellous publications by the EFCC against her, although this lawsuit is not related to assets.
