A three-man panel of the Court of Appeal, Lagos
Division, on Wednesday, August 6, 2025, restored the preservation order on 14
properties and the sum of N400m linked to Yahaya Bello, a former governor of
Kogi State.
Justice Nicholas Oweibo of the Federal High Court
sitting in Ikoyi, Lagos had, on February 22, 2023, in a suit filed by the Lagos
Zonal Directorate of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission, ordered the
preservation of the properties, including “Hotel Apartment Community, Burj
Khalifa lying, being and situate at, Plot 160 Municipality NO 345-7562, Sky
View Building No 1, Property No 401, Floor 4, Dubai U.A.E.”, as well as
the fund reasonably suspected to have been derived from unlawful activities.
The order was made pursuant to Sections 9 and 10 of
the Proceeds of Crime (Recovery and Management) Act, 2022.
However, on April 26, 2023, the trial court
struck out the EFCC’s suit seeking the final forfeiture of the assets on the
grounds that Bello, then a sitting governor, enjoyed constitutional
immunity under Section 308 of the 1999 Constitution.
Dissatisfied with the ruling, the EFCC, through its
counsel, Rotimi Oyedepo, SAN, Bilkisu Buhari Bala, S.I. Suleiman, and
Chinenye C. Okezie, had approached the Court of Appeal, arguing that the trial
court erred in law by applying the immunity clause to a proceedings that
concerned properties reasonably suspected to be proceeds of crime.
The EFCC contended that the immunity provided under
Section 308 does not extend to assets linked to alleged unlawful activities and
that the trial court failed to follow judicial precedents, including EFCC v.
Fayose (2018) LPELR-44131(CA) and Fawehinmi v. IGP (2002) 7 NWLR (Pt.767) 606,
which provided clarity on the scope of the immunity clause.
In urging the appellate court to restore the order,
Oyedepo averred that “Justice Oweibo erred in law when he struck out the suit,
as the immunity conferred on the Respondent against any civil or criminal
proceedings during his incumbency as a governor of Kogi State does not extend
to properties reasonably suspected to be proceeds of crime traced to him.
“That the court erred and occasioned a miscarriage of
justice when it refused to bind itself with the decision of the Court of Appeal
in EFCC V Fayose (2018) LPELR 44131 CA and the decision of the Supreme Court in
Fawehinmi V IGP (2002)7 NWLR (PT767)606, on the proper interpretation of
Section 308 of the 1999 Constitution.
“That the learned trial court erred in law when it
struck out a preservation order of properties reasonably suspected to have been
derived from proceeds of unlawful activities notwithstanding its findings that
the Respondent failed to show the genuine origin of funds used to acquire the
properties under the preservation order.”
In a lead judgment delivered by Justice Nimpar B
Yargata, the three-man panel of Justices confirmed the EFCC’s position, and
held that the lower court erred when it struck out the suit, despite finding
that the Respondent had failed to show the legitimate origin of the funds used
to acquire the properties.
The Appeal court also affirmed that the trial judge
misapplied Section 308 and ordered the restoration of the preservation order
The three-man panel, therefore, directed that the suit
for the final forfeiture of the properties should proceed accordingly.
Comments:
Leave a Reply