The Federal High Court in Lagos has ordered the permanent forfeiture of the sums of N9.2bn and $8.4m recovered from wife of former President Goodluck Jonathan, Patience.
The order was made on Monday by Justice Mojisola Olatoregun, who said that the funds should be forfeited to the Federal Government.
The Economic and Financial Crimes Commission, EFCC, had dragged Mrs. Jonathan to court claiming the funds were proceeds of crime.
Lawyers to Mrs. Jonathan, Ifedayo Adedipe, SAN, and Mike Ozekhome, SAN, opposed the application insisting that the funds were legitimately made.
In the judgment, Justice Olatoregun held that the 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 extrajudicial statements of the Bureau De Change agents which were not controverted by the respondents.
“In 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.”
The Judge also held that the respondents “failed to show cause why the monies should not be permanently forfeited to the Federal Government of Nigeria.”
Charged along with Jonathan were Globus Integrated Services Ltd, Finchley Top Homes Ltd., Am-Pm Global Network Ltd, Pagmat Oil and Gas Ltd, Magel Resort Ltd and Esther Oba.
During the trial of the case, the anti graft body argued that the respondents were not into any legitimate business that could earn such amounts and insisted that the firms were set up for the purpose of warehousing proceeds of unlawful activities for the former first lady.
In their response, Jonathan’s counsel, Adedipe, contended that the EFCC was wrong to tag the money as proceeds of crime, when she had not been charged with any crime and when nobody complained that their money was missing.
He said, contrary to the claim by the commission, the funds were cash gifts which Patience received when her husband was in office.
The lawyer contended that Section 17 of the Advance Fee Fraud, which EFCC relied upon to seize Patience’s funds, was only applicable to fraudsters.
Also, Ozekhome, who appeared for La Wari Furniture and Baths, claimed the money found in his clients’ accounts was legitimate as La Wari Furniture was into the import and export of furniture and antique.
“It is settled law that suspicion, no matter how grave, can never amount to legal evidence to prove the guilt or culpability of anyone either in criminal or civil proceedings.
“They have not brought anybody to complain that money is missing. It is not a crime that La Wari Furniture and Baths had made money.
He urged the court to refuse the EFCC application.
