Don’t Allow EFCC To Sell My Property, Assets – Diezani Begs Court

 

Embattled former Minister of Petroleum Resources, Mrs Diezani Alison-Madueke, has approached a Federal High Court, Abuja to withdraw an order granted to the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) for final forfeiture of her seized assets.

 

 In an originating motion, Alison-Madueke sought an order extending the time limit for seeking leave to apply to the court for an order to set aside the EFCC’s public notice to conduct a public sale on her property.

Alison-Madueke was Minister of Petroleum Resources under President Goodluck Jonathan.

Since the administration of President Muhammadu Buhari led-Federal Government took over the office in 2015, the former minister relocated to the United Kingdom.

The Nigerian government through the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) seized all her properties declaring that it was acquired through illegal means.

The EFCC in Suit No. 1122/2021 and Suit No 1123/2021, filed before Justice Olajuwon sought an order of the court for the final forfeiture of the assets belonging to the former Minister to the federal government.

However, in the motion marked: FHC/ABJ/CS/21/2023, dated and filed Jan. 6 before Justice Inyang Ekwo by her lawyer, Chief Mike Ozekhome, SAN, the ex-minister sought five orders from the court.

While Alison-Madueke is the applicant in the case, the EFCC is the sole respondent.

The former minister, who argued that the various orders were made without jurisdiction, said these “ought to be set aside ex debito justitiae.”

She said she was not given fair hearing in all the proceedings leading to the orders.

“The various court orders issued in favour of the respondent and upon which the respondent issued the public notice to conduct public sale of items contained in the public notice most of which court the interest of the applicant were issued in breach of the applicant’s right to fair hearing as guaranteed by Section 36 (1) of the 1999 Constitution, as altered, and other similar constitutional provisions,” she said.

She claimed that she was not served with the charge sheet and proof of evidence in any of the charges, nor with any other summons in relation to the criminal charges pending against her before the court.

She also claimed that the courts were misled into issuing final forfeiture orders against her assets due to the suppression or non-disclosure of material facts.

“The several applications upon which the courts made the final order of forfeiture against the applicant were obtained upon gross misstatements, misrepresentations, non-disclosure, concealment and suppression of material facts and this honourable court has the power to set-aside same ex debito justitiae, as a void order is as good as if it was never made at all.

“The orders were made without recourse to the constitutional right to fair hearing and right to property accorded the applicant by the constitution.

“The applicant was never served with the processes of court in all the proceedings that led to the order of final forfeiture,” she said, among other grounds given.

 

 

But the EFCC, in a counter affidavit deposed to by Rufai Zaki, a detective with the commission, urged the court to dismiss Alison-Madueke’s application.

Zaki, a member of the team that investigated a case of criminal conspiracy, official corruption, and money laundering against the ex-minister and others involved in the case, stated that the investigation clearly demonstrated that she was involved in some criminal acts.

He said Alison-Madueke was therefore charged before the court in charge no: FHC/ABJ/CR/208/2018.

“We hereby rely on the charge FHC/ABJ/CR/208/2018 dated 14th November, 2018 filed before this honourable court and also attached as Exhibit C in the applicant’s affidavit,” he said.

The EFCC operative, who said he had seen the ex-minister’s motion, said most of the depositions were untrue.

He said contrary to her deposition in the affidavit in support, most of the cases which led to the final forfeiture of the contested property “were action in rem, same were heard at various times and determined by this honourable court.”

He said the courts differently ordered the commission to do a newspaper publication inviting parties to show cause why the said property should not be forfeited to the Federal Government, before final orders were made.

Zaki argued that one Nnamdi Awa Kalu represented the ex-minister in reaction to one of the forfeiture applications.

“We humbly rely on the judgment of Hon. Justice I.LN. Oweibo dated 10th September, 2019 shown in Exhibit C of the applicant’s affidavit,” he said.

The officer said that the contrary to her, the final forfeiture of the assets which were subject of the present application was ordered by the court since 2017 and that this was not set aside or upturned on appeal.

Upon mentioning the matter on Monday, Alison-Madueke’s counsel, Oluchi Uche, told Justice Ekwo that they were just been served by the EFFC on Friday and they would need time to respond to the counter affidavit.

Farouk Abdullah, who appeared by the anti-graft agency, did not oppose and the judge adjourned the matter until May 8 for hearing.

 

Malami Working To Ensure China Doesn’t Take Over Nigeria’s Assets – DMO

 

Nigeria’s Debt Management Office has moved to allays fears that the nation’s assets could be taken over by China amid rising debt acquisitions.

Patience Oniha, the Director-General of DMO, on Saturday in Abuja, said the Nigerian government takes “very sensitive steps” before contracting foreign loans.

One of the fundamental steps, she said, is that the Attorney General and Minister of Justice vets all loan agreements to ensure the country’s interest is protected.

“An important and extremely critical step is that the loan agreements are approved by the Federal Ministry of Justice.

“An opinion is issued by the Attorney-General of the Federation and Minister of Justice before the agreements are signed,” she said.

Ms Oniha said multiple institutions of government are also involved to ensure that the loans were beneficial to the nation.

“Before any foreign loan is contracted, including the issuance of Eurobond, they are approved by the Federal Executive Council and thereafter, the National Assembly.”

The nation’s debt manager assured that loan agreements between the two nations provided a number of steps to take to resolve disputes when they arise.

“The first action is that the parties should resolve it within themselves and if that fails, they go to arbitration.

“In other words, a lender, in this case, China, would not just pounce on an asset at the first sign of a dispute, including defaults,’’ she said.

Meanwhile, loans from China to Nigeria, which presently stood at $3.59 billion, constitutes only 9.4 per cent  of the country’s total foreign debt stock of 37.9 billion dollars, Ms Oniha noted.

She also clarified that the loans were largely concessional, as no national asset was tagged as collateral.

“Nigeria’s total debt stock as at September 30 was 37.9 billion dollars, this figure comprised the external debt stock of the Federal Government, 36 state governments and the Federal Capital Territory.

But total loans from China stand at 3.59 billion dollars, which is 9.47 per cent of the total external debt.  The loans did not require any national asset as collateral; they were largely concessional,’’ she said.

There have been reports, in recent times, about some African countries, including Nigeria, facing the threat of losing some critical national assets to the Asian country due to high level indebtedness.

In November, Akelicious reported how Ugandan authorities, while acquiring a loan facility, signed away control of the East African country’s lone international airport to Chinese Exim Bank.