The legal battle between former Petroleum Minister, Diezani Alison-Madueke, and the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) over the auctioning of her seized assets continues to unfold. Alison-Madueke, through her legal representative, Chief Mike Ozekhome (SAN), has filed an amended application with the Federal High Court in Abuja, seeking the retrieval of her assets from those who purchased them during a public auction conducted by the EFCC. She argues that the EFCC’s actions violated her fundamental right to a fair hearing and disregarded statutory provisions, including the EFCC Act of 2004 and the Proceeds of Crime Recovery and Management Act of 2022. The crux of her argument hinges on the assertion that the final forfeiture orders, which paved the way for the auction, were issued without proper jurisdiction and denied her a fair hearing. Consequently, she is requesting the court to invalidate the public notice that authorized the auction and restrain the EFCC from further disposal of her properties.
Alison-Madueke’s legal challenge began shortly after the EFCC announced the public auction of her assets, scheduled between January 9 and 13, 2023. She filed an originating motion, seeking an extension of time to apply for an order to set aside the public notice and prevent the auction. This initial move aimed to halt the imminent disposal of her properties, arguing that the process was flawed and infringed upon her rights. The legal action, marked FHC/ABJ/CS/21/2023, set the stage for the ongoing legal tussle between the former minister and the anti-graft agency, with both sides presenting their arguments and evidence before the court. The dispute centers on the legality of the forfeiture orders and the subsequent auction, raising questions about due process, jurisdictional authority, and the protection of individual rights in asset forfeiture cases.
The EFCC, however, maintains that it acted within the confines of the law. In a counter-affidavit, the commission, represented by litigation officer Oyakhilome Ekienabor, argued that the sale of Alison-Madueke’s properties was executed in accordance with final forfeiture orders issued by the Federal High Court in 2019. These orders, according to the EFCC, were the culmination of extensive investigations into Alison-Madueke’s activities during her tenure as Petroleum Minister, leading to criminal proceedings against her in various courts. The EFCC insists that the forfeiture proceedings followed due process, including the publication of a notice inviting interested parties to contest the forfeiture. They further argue that Alison-Madueke was represented during these proceedings and that the court considered her counsel’s submissions before issuing the final forfeiture orders.
The EFCC’s counter-argument rests on the premise that the forfeiture proceedings were conducted as “actions in rem,” meaning actions against the property itself rather than the person. This legal distinction, according to the EFCC, makes the court’s decisions binding on all parties, including Alison-Madueke, regardless of her direct participation in the specific forfeiture proceedings. They contend that the court provided adequate opportunity for interested parties to present their case and that the final forfeiture orders were legally sound. Furthermore, the EFCC asserts that the subsequent auction of the properties was conducted in full compliance with these orders and established legal procedures.
The legal proceedings continue to progress with both parties presenting their arguments before Justice Inyang Ekwo. On February 17, Justice Ekwo granted Alison-Madueke’s request to amend her suit, allowing her to refine her legal arguments and present additional evidence. Following the amendment, her counsel, Godwin Iyinbor, requested an adjournment to respond to the EFCC’s counter-affidavit. This adjournment underscores the complexity of the case and the need for both parties to thoroughly address the legal and factual issues involved. Justice Ekwo, recognizing the protracted nature of the proceedings, emphasized the importance of expediting the case to reach a timely resolution.
The case has been adjourned to March 27 for further hearing, allowing both sides to prepare their arguments and present their evidence. The court will then consider the arguments and evidence presented and issue a ruling. This case represents a significant legal battle, with implications for asset forfeiture procedures and the protection of individual rights in Nigeria. The outcome will likely set a precedent for future cases involving the seizure and disposal of assets by the EFCC and other law enforcement agencies. The court’s decision will be closely watched by legal experts, anti-corruption advocates, and the public, as it addresses fundamental questions about due process, fairness, and the balance between the state’s power to seize assets and the rights of individuals facing such actions.
