 |
| Patience Jonathan |
Four firms linked to former First Lady Dame Patience Jonathan yesterday appealed the forfeiture of her N12.2 billion to the Federal Government.
The firms are praying the Court of Appeal in Lagos to set aside the judgment of Justice Mojisola Olatoregun of the Federal High Court in Lagos.
They contended through Mrs Jonathanโs counsel Chief Mike Ozekhome (SAN) that the judge erred in law by ordering the final forfeiture when she had no jurisdiction to do so.
The firms are: Finchley Top Homes Limited, Am-Pm Global Network Limited, Pagmat Oil and Gas Limited, Magel Resort Limited and Oba.
The first to fourth respondents in the appeal are: the EFCC, Mrs Jonathan, Globus Integrated Services and Esther Oba.
Justice Olatoregun, on Monday, ruled on an application by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) praying her to order the forfeiture of $8.4 million (about N3.030 billion) and N9.2 billion found in her companiesโ accounts.
She held that the funds were proceeds of unlawful activities.
In their suit, the firms raised six grounds of appeal.
The appellants contended on the first ground that the judge โerred in law and occasioned a miscarriage of justice when she assumed jurisdiction to hear the motion for final forfeiture โฆdespite the clear abuse of judicial processโ by the EFCC.
They averred that the judge also relied on โspeculative depositions of the EFCC against the clear evidence of income and proof of the acquisition of income and proofโ of the firmsโ incomes.
According to them, the judge forfeited the money, despite knowing that the lower courtโs jurisdiction was being challenged.
In another instance, they said: โThe judge erred in law โฆwhen she did not first of all reach a decision as to whether the appellant had shown sufficient cause, which would have warranted an exercise of the learned lower courtโs discretion to discharge of the interim forfeiture before proceeding to hear the application for final forfeiture filed by the EFCC.โ
The applicants further averred that the judge should not have โshifted the onus probandi to the appellant to prove not only the source of their funds but their innocence.
โThe judgment is against the weight of the evidence,โ they said.
In her judgment on Monday, Justice Olatoregun said she had โno doubts, at all, that these monies are proceeds of unlawful activitiesโ.
She held: โThe respondents failed to dispel the suspicion created by the movement of the monies within the meaning and contemplation of the Advance Fee Fraud and Other Related Offences Act, coupled with the various extra-judicial statements of the Bureau De Change (BDC) agents, which were not controverted by the respondents.
โIn all of this, taking into consideration the overwhelming evidence provided by the applicant, the mode, the circumstances and the manner involved, using fictitious names, etcetera, to lodge monies in her name by named and unnamed individuals and BDCs, I cannot come to a conclusion by any sense of responsibility that these monies are proceeds of lawful activities within the meaning and contemplation of the provisions of the Advance Fee Fraud and other related offences Act 2006; the Money Laundering Act 2004 and the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission Act 2004 and other laws enforceable under the EFCC Act 2004.โ
According to the judge, the respondents failed to show cause why the monies should not be permanently forfeited to the Federal Government of Nigeria.
The EFCC, in a separate forfeiture proceeding also pending before Justice Olatoregun, is seeking the final forfeiture of another $5.7 million and N2.4 billion belonging to Mrs. Jonathan.
Judgment will be delivered in the matter in September, it was learnt.
