Court of Appeal strips Obla’s panel of prosecutorial powers

The Court of Appeal in Abuja has nullified the prosecutorial
powers of the Special Presidential Investigation Panel for the
Recovery of Public Property (SPIP).

The decision of the court followed an appeal by the Tumsah
brothers: Ibrahim and Tijani challenging the refusal of an FCT High
Court to set aside the ex-parte order made on December 6, 2017
seizing their properties.

In a unanimous judgement delivered on Monday, the five-member
panel of judges presided by Justice Husseini Mukhtar held that the
SPIP has no power to apply for forfeiture of properties.

The court said that under Section 4(4) of the Recovery of
Properties Special Provisions Act, the SPIP should report its
findings and conclusions to the Head of the Federal Republic, Who
will in turn submit same to the Economic and Financial Crimes
Commission (EFCC) for action.

The appellate court ruled that the trial court arrived at its
decision to grant the ex-parte application forfeiting the
properties based on sentiment when it knew that it lacked the
jurisdiction to make such order.

“It is very important that due process be followed in this
corruption cases, and indeed in all other matters. The Special
Investigation Panel having been set up under the Recovery of
Properties Special Provisions Act and thus being a creation of
statutes, its powers are indeed circumscribed by the statutes
creating it,” the court said.

The SPIP led by the Special Adviser to the President on
Anti-corruption, Okoi Obono-Obla had in December, 2017 through an
ex-parte seized 86 cars from the Ibrahim Tumsah, a Director of
Finance and Accounts in the Ministry of Works and Housing, and
Tijani Tumsah.

Also seized were houses located at No 34 Euphrates Street, Wuse
2, Abuja; No 5 Sirasso Crescent, Wuse Zone 7, Abuja; a quarry plant
at Kuje, Abuja; No 27 Cairo Crescent, Wuse 2, Abuja; and No 22
Igbani Street, Jabi, Abuja.

Counsel to the applicants, Kehinde Ogunwumiju (SAN) had in the
appeal raised three main issues, which include among others that
the suit for the forfeiture of the properties was not properly
constituted by the SPIP, that the panel could not rely on the EFCC
Act to make the application for forfeiture, and that the lower
court was wrong when it refused to set aside the Interim
forfeiture.