Diezani Relaunches Effort to Reclaim Forfeited Properties

She went on to say that the different courts didn’t have the right to order her assets to be taken away because they didn’t have the right to do so.

Diezani Alison-Madueke, a former minister of petroleum resources, has started a procedure at the Federal High Court in Abuja to have the Federal Government’s forfeiture orders on properties allegedly connected to her nullified.

People think that the former Minister of Petroleum Resources owned property in Nigeria and other places, and the Federal Government got orders last year to take those properties away for good.

Alison-Madueke, through her attorney and senior Nigerian advocate Mike Ozekhome, has filed a new motion with the Federal High Court in Abuja. Among other things, Alison-Madueke requests an order extending the deadline for requesting leave to ask the court for an order overturning the public notice that the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) had issued to hold a public auction on her property.

She said that the move was in response to a recent notice from the EFCC that ordered the sale of seized assets, some of which were her own.

The former minister also stated in a supporting affidavit that the EFCC intended to hold a public auction of all forfeited property starting on January 9 as stated in its public notice in response to various court judgments/orders issued in the commission’s favour as final forfeiture orders against property and personal effects connected to her.

Alison-Madueke requested five reliefs, claiming among other things that she was not given a chance to be heard prior to the orders for forfeiture, depriving her of her legal rights.

READ ALSO: Naira Redesign: Ado Doguwa Alleges Emefiele misled Buhari

She continued by saying that the various courts lacked jurisdiction when they issued forfeiture orders for assets connected to her.

“The different court orders issued in favour of the EFCC and upon which they issued the public notice to conduct public sale of items contained in the public notice, most of which affect her interest, were issued in violation of the right to a fair hearing as guaranteed by Section 36 (1) of the 1999 Constitution, as amended, and other similar constitutional provisions,” Alison-Madueke continued.

She added that none of the summonses or charge sheets related to the criminal charges against her that are currently being heard by the court, nor any proof of evidence in connection with any of the offences, were served on her.

The former minister went on to say that by withholding or failing to provide crucial information, the courts were misled into issuing several of the ultimate forfeiture orders against her assets.

The EFCC challenged Alison-claims Madueke’s in her counter affidavit, pointing out that not only was she represented in some of the hearings, but also media announcements were made to inform interested parties about ongoing forfeiture actions.

An EFCC official named Rufai Zaki claimed to be a member of the team that looked into allegations of official corruption, criminal conspiracy, and money laundering against Mrs. Allison-Madueke and some other people associated with the case. He claimed that the investigation revealed that she was involved in some criminal activity.

He continued by saying that the numerous courts without jurisdiction issued the forfeiture orders in regard to the assets connected to her.

According to Zaki, Mrs. Alison-Madueke was charged before the Federal High court in a case with the following designation: FHC/ABJ/CR/208/2018 as a result of his team’s findings.

According to him, the commission was mandated by the courts to publish notices in newspapers asking interested parties to provide justification as to why the property in question shouldn’t be forfeited to the federal government before making final decisions.

In the hearing of one of these forfeiture claims, Zaki noted that a certain Nnamdi Awa Kalu had acted as counsel for the former minister.

The assets in question have now been sold in accordance with the law, he continued, noting that the ruling for the forfeiture of the affected properties was made in 2017 and was not reversed on appeal.