Court upholds final forfeiture of Emefiele’s vast estate to FG

In a significant legal development, the Federal Capital Territory (FCT) High Court in Apo, Abuja, has rejected former Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN) Governor Godwin Emefiele’s attempt to reclaim a massive estate already forfeited to the federal government.

Delivering the judgment on Monday, Justice Jude Onwuegbuzie confirmed the final forfeiture of the property, which includes 753 duplexes and apartments.

Located at Plot 109, Cadastral Zone CO9, in the Lokogoma District of Abuja, the estate spans over 150,000 square meters. The property was seized after a legal action initiated by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC).

The EFCC had initially secured an interim forfeiture order before successfully obtaining the final ruling, ensuring that the estate is now permanently forfeited to the government.

Although the estate was initially recovered from an unnamed former senior government official, many had linked it to Emefiele.

Through his lawyer, Senior Advocate of Nigeria, Adeyinka Kotoye, the former CBN governor subsequently filed a motion as an interested party in the estate.

He sought an extension of time to apply to set aside the interim and final forfeiture orders made by the court on December 2 and December 24, 2024, respectively.

Emefiele contended that the entire forfeiture process was conducted without his knowledge and alleged that the EFCC published the interim forfeiture notice in an obscure section of The Punch Newspaper, making it difficult for him to respond timely.

He argued that he had been standing trial in three separate criminal cases across different courts in Abuja and Lagos during the relevant period, making it practically impossible for him to discover the publication.

Emefiele also accused the EFCC of deliberately concealing the forfeiture proceedings despite their frequent interactions with him over other pending charges.

In his ruling, Justice Onwuegbuzie emphasized that while the principle of functus officio (a court becoming powerless after delivering judgment) was argued, the court retained the authority to review its decisions under appropriate circumstances.

The judge noted that Section 17(2) of the Advance Fee Fraud and Other Fraud Related Offences Act, 2006, governs notice requirements in forfeiture proceedings.

He rejected Emefiele’s argument that the publication was obscure, stating that the half-page notice in a national newspaper like Punch could not reasonably be described as hidden.

The court stressed that only individuals who can show a recognizable interest in the forfeited property are entitled to intervene, akin to the principles governing joinder in lawsuits.

In conclusion, Justice Onwuegbuzie held that Emefiele was given ample opportunity—over 14 days—to contest the forfeiture but failed to act. He therefore dismissed the motion, resolving the sole issue in favour of the EFCC.