21
Feb
Feb
COURT ORDERS FINAL FORFEITURE OF $4.7M, N830M, AND PROPERTIES LINKED TO EMEFIELE
-
Nicolas Adekeye / 3 months
- 0
- 2 min read
A Federal High Court in Lagos has ordered the final forfeiture of $4.7 million, N830 million, and multiple properties linked to Godwin Emefiele, the former governor of the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN). Justice Yellim Bogoro granted the final forfeiture application of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC), represented by counsel Bilkisu Buhari-Bala. The funds, now forfeited to the federal government, were held in First Bank, Titan Bank, and Zenith Bank accounts managed by individuals and entities including Omoile Anita Joy, Deep Blue Energy Service Limited, Exactquote Bureau De Change Ltd, Lipam Investment Services Limited, Tatler Services Limited, Rosajul Global Resources Ltd, and TIL Communication Nigeria Ltd. Properties affected by the forfeiture include 94 units of an 11-floor building under construction at 2 Otunba Elegushi 2nd Avenue, Ikoyi, Lagos, and AM Plaza, an 11-floor office space on Otunba Adedoyin Crescent, Lekki Peninsula Scheme 1, Lagos. Other properties include Imore Industrial Park 1, Mitrewood and Tatler Warehouse, and two properties purchased from Chevron Nigeria, located in Lakes Estate, Lekki, Lagos. Justice Bogoro held that all these properties and funds are proceeds of unlawful activities which are bound to be forfeited to the Federal Government of Nigeria. “I find that the activities of the respondents here were unlawful. Why should they have a problem of dollars immediately Godwin Emefiele left CBN as a governor of the Bank and salary could not be paid?” Justice Bogoro stated. “I hold that they are not legitimate business activities. I hold that Anita Omoile is a close crony of the former CBN governor Godwin Emefiele who has been given undue influence to unlawfully sway dollars from CBN.” The EFCC had cited Section 17 of the Advance Fee Fraud and Other Fraud Related Offences Act, 2006, and Section 44(2)(b) of the Nigerian Constitution in its application, seeking an interim forfeiture on the grounds that the funds and properties were suspected to be proceeds of unlawful activities. Following the failure of the defendants or anyone else to prove that the funds legitimately belonged to them, the judge then made the interim order permanent.