‘Patience Jonathan’s’ $5.78m, N2.4bn Final Forfeiture Hearing Resumes Oct 7

A Federal High Court in Lagos on Monday adjourned till October
7, to hear a motion seeking the final forfeiture of the
$5.78million and N2.4billion, linked to a former First Lady, Dame
Patience Jonathan.

Justice T.G Ringim fixed the date after taking arguments from
counsel to the parties in the matter.

The Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) filed the
application for forfeiture in 2017 before Justice Mojisola
Olatoregun.

The defendants in the suit were Mrs Jonathan alongside LA Wari
Furniture and Bathes.

According to the EFCC, the funds belonged to the ex-First
Lady.

The monies were said to be warehoused by Skye Bank Plc and
Ecobank Plc respectively.

Justice Olatoregun on April 26, 2017, ordered the temporary
forfeiture of the monies, sequel to an ex-parte application by the
EFCC.

The judge’s order was affirmed by both the Court of Appeal and
Supreme Court.

However, midway to the conclusion of hearing on the final
forfeiture on the said sums, Justice Olatoregun retired from the
Bench in 2019.

The development compelled the Chief Judge of the court to
re-assign the matter to Justice Chuka Obiozor for hearing.

But Justice Obiozor could not hear the case before his transfer
to the court’s Benin division.

At the resumed hearing of the matter on Monday, EFCC counsel, Mr
Rotimi Oyedepo, narrated to Justice Ringim how far the matter had
gone.

Oyedepo said: “This matter is a suit instituted before your
learned brother, Justice Olatoregun now retired, where we prayed
for the final forfeiture of the sum of $5,781,173.55, warehoused in
Skye Bank Plc and N2,421,953,502.78, property of LA Wari Furniture
and Bathes in Ecobank Plc.

“It was instituted and an interim order was granted on April 24,
2017, upon which it went up to Supreme Court and an application for
its final forfeiture was moved but the trial judge didn’t deliver
judgment before retiring.

“It was upon that fact that the file was transferred to the
registry where it was reassigned to the former judge and
subsequently your Lordship.”

Counsel to Mrs Jonathan, Mr Ifedayo Adedipe SAN and Gboyega
Oyewole SAN, also informed the judge that the case was adjourned
for mention because it was coming up for the first time before
him

But counsel to the companies, Chief Mike Ozekhome SAN, argued
otherwise by urging the court to adjourn the case on the premise
that it was starting afresh and that he intended to file an
application challenging the constitutionality of the entire
proceedings.

Ozekhome prayed the court to grant a long adjournment to enable
him file the application that the case is supposed to start
afresh.

But Oyedepo opposed the application, praying the court not to
grant it, because, according to him, there a procedure enshrined in
section 17 of the Advanced Fee Fraud and other related offences
Act, which the EFCC had compiled with except the last step which is
a motion for final forfeiture.

He invited the judge to look at the proceedings of February 17,
2021 where the former judge adjourned hearing of the motion for
final forfeiture till April 13, which could not hold because of the
Judiciary Staff Union of Nigeria (JUSUN) strike.

He prayed further that should the court be inclined to grant an
adjournment, it should be for the motion of final forfeiture.

In a bench ruling, Justice Ringim held that a proceeding of this
nature is a special one and cannot be truncated by any
application.

He said: “I say in my humble opinion that there is a procedure
to follow in this type of application which cannot truncated.

“The court cannot adjourn the matter because of an application
which is yet to be filed. However, due to the nature of the
application as hinted by the second respondent, the court will not
shut the application out.

“This court will adjourn for the hearing of the motion for final
forfeiture that is pending.

“Consequently, the second respondent is hereby ordered to file
the application if any within 14 days from today and the plaintiff
will have one week to respond. It will be heard alongside the
motion for final forfeiture.”

He adjourned further proceedings till October 7.

A Federal High Court in Lagos on Monday adjourned till October
7, to hear a motion seeking the final forfeiture of the
$5.78million and N2.4billion, linked to a former First Lady, Dame
Patience Jonathan.

Justice T.G Ringim fixed the date after taking arguments from
counsel to the parties in the matter.

The Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) filed the
application for forfeiture in 2017 before Justice Mojisola
Olatoregun.

The defendants in the suit were Mrs Jonathan alongside LA Wari
Furniture and Bathes.

According to the EFCC, the funds belonged to the ex-First
Lady.

The monies were said to be warehoused by Skye Bank Plc and
Ecobank Plc respectively.

Justice Olatoregun on April 26, 2017, ordered the temporary
forfeiture of the monies, sequel to an ex-parte application by the
EFCC.

The judge’s order was affirmed by both the Court of Appeal and
Supreme Court.

However, midway to the conclusion of hearing on the final
forfeiture on the said sums, Justice Olatoregun retired from the
Bench in 2019.

The development compelled the Chief Judge of the court to
re-assign the matter to Justice Chuka Obiozor for hearing.

But Justice Obiozor could not hear the case before his transfer
to the court’s Benin division.

At the resumed hearing of the matter on Monday, EFCC counsel, Mr
Rotimi Oyedepo, narrated to Justice Ringim how far the matter had
gone.

Oyedepo said: “This matter is a suit instituted before your
learned brother, Justice Olatoregun now retired, where we prayed
for the final forfeiture of the sum of $5,781,173.55, warehoused in
Skye Bank Plc and N2,421,953,502.78, property of LA Wari Furniture
and Bathes in Ecobank Plc.

“It was instituted and an interim order was granted on April 24,
2017, upon which it went up to Supreme Court and an application for
its final forfeiture was moved but the trial judge didn’t deliver
judgment before retiring.

“It was upon that fact that the file was transferred to the
registry where it was reassigned to the former judge and
subsequently your Lordship.”

Counsel to Mrs Jonathan, Mr Ifedayo Adedipe SAN and Gboyega
Oyewole SAN, also informed the judge that the case was adjourned
for mention because it was coming up for the first time before
him

But counsel to the companies, Chief Mike Ozekhome SAN, argued
otherwise by urging the court to adjourn the case on the premise
that it was starting afresh and that he intended to file an
application challenging the constitutionality of the entire
proceedings.

Ozekhome prayed the court to grant a long adjournment to enable
him file the application that the case is supposed to start
afresh.

But Oyedepo opposed the application, praying the court not to
grant it, because, according to him, there a procedure enshrined in
section 17 of the Advanced Fee Fraud and other related offences
Act, which the EFCC had compiled with except the last step which is
a motion for final forfeiture.

He invited the judge to look at the proceedings of February 17,
2021 where the former judge adjourned hearing of the motion for
final forfeiture till April 13, which could not hold because of the
Judiciary Staff Union of Nigeria (JUSUN) strike.

He prayed further that should the court be inclined to grant an
adjournment, it should be for the motion of final forfeiture.

In a bench ruling, Justice Ringim held that a proceeding of this
nature is a special one and cannot be truncated by any
application.

He said: “I say in my humble opinion that there is a procedure
to follow in this type of application which cannot truncated.

“The court cannot adjourn the matter because of an application
which is yet to be filed. However, due to the nature of the
application as hinted by the second respondent, the court will not
shut the application out.

“This court will adjourn for the hearing of the motion for final
forfeiture that is pending.

“Consequently, the second respondent is hereby ordered to file
the application if any within 14 days from today and the plaintiff
will have one week to respond. It will be heard alongside the
motion for final forfeiture.”

He adjourned further proceedings till October 7.