How presidential panel misled court to issue interim forfeiture order of $158m — Telecom firm

A telecommunication firm, INT Towers Limited, has urged the
Federal High Court in Abuja to discharge an order of temporary
forfeiture of the sum of $158,185,154.65 placed on its bank account
at the instance of the Special Presidential Investigative Panel for
Recovery of Public Property.

The firm, which deals in providing telecommunication
infrastructure, alleged that the ex parte order was “improperly
obtained.”

It added that the SPIPRPP’s application for order was dogged by
“misrepresentation, deliberate falsehood, bad faith and/or
suspension of material facts.”

The firm’s legal team, led by Prof Koyin Ajayi (SAN), also
stated that the action “constitutes a gross abuse of process and an
abuse of statutory power.”

Part of the alleged falsehood pointed out by the applicant in
the SPIPRPP’s claim was that the account exhibited to back its
request for the interim forfeiture order was not dollar but a
naira-denominated account.

It added, “The statement of account with account number
2563000674 exhibited as Exhibit I to MK Affidavit is a naira
denominated account and not a dollar-denominated account.

“The balance sum in Exhibit I is N158,185,154.65 and not
$158,185,154.65.

“The money in Exhibit I were represented to this honourable
court to be in dollars whereas the money is actually in naira, this
has led to an inflation of the actual deposit in the account.”

It also alleged that the account statement exhibited was not the
one the SPIPRPP claimed was under investigation and for which the
interim forfeiture order was obtained.

“The claimant exhibited a statement of account in respect of
account number 2563000674 (marked Exhibit I to the MK Affidavit),
an account entirely different from account number 2563000681 said
to be under investigation,” an affidavit deposed to by the Manager,
Dispute Resolution of INT Towers Limited, Daniel Ade-Peters, and
filed in support of the company’s motion read in part.

Ade-Peters stated that the account number 2563000674 exhibited
“does not belong to either the 1st respondent (International Towers
Limited) and the 2nd respondent (INT Towers Nigeria Limited),” both
of which the SPIPRPP named as the owners of the account in their ex
parte application.

The applicant, INT Towers Limited, which claimed to be the
actual owner of the account, was not joined as a respondent, but
International Towers Limited and INT Towers Nigeria Limited, as
well as the bank, Ecobank Plc, were joined instead.

The company (Int Towers Limited) stated that the firms named in
the SPIPRPP’s ex parte application as the owner of the bank account
targeted by the order —International Towers Limited and Int Towers
Nigeria Limited — were not the owners of the account.

Justice Ijeoma Ojukwu of the Federal High Court in Abuja had
upon an ex parte application by the SPIPRPP issued an order for
interim forfeiture of the sum of $158m in an account with Ecobank
Plc.

The panel had named International Towers Limited, INT Towers
Nigeria Limited and the Ecobank as the respondents to the exclusion
of the applicant, INT Towers Limited, which had filed its
application as an interested party to challenge the court’s
order.

In a separate suit, marked FHC/ABJ/CS/453/2019, the company
challenged the powers of the SPIPRPP to conduct investigations on
the various offences it was embarking on.

It argued that by the provisions of sections 1, 6, 7, 18 and 46
of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (Establishment)
Act, sections 3, 6, 8, 9, 18 and 19 of the Corrupt Practices Act,
and sections 15, 18 and 19 of the Money Laundering (Prohibition)
Act, the Recovery of Public Property Act which establishes the
SPIPRPP “has been impliedly repealed” as it “has run its course, is
spent and/or obsolete.”

It also urged the court to declare the SPIPRPP’s request for its
statement of account as a violation of its right to privacy
guaranteed under Section 37 of the Constitution.

It urged the court to strike down sections 1(2) and 2(2) of the
Recovery of Public Property Act for being unconstitutional, null
and void.

It also asked the court to set aside the SPIPRPP’s letter of
invitation dated October 31, 2018, with reference number, CR:
3000/SPIP/ABJ/T5/VOL. 2/280.

It sought an order of perpetual injunction restraining the
panel, its chairman, members, officers and others from
“inviting/further inviting, arresting or detaining the plaintiff,
its directors, shareholders, officers, employees, servants, agents,
privies and any other person acting through or on behalf of the
plaintiff pursuant to the provisions of the Recovery of Public
Property Act.”

On June 6, Mr Oluseye Opasanya (SAN) led the plaintiff’s team
while Eric Efere appeared for the defendant.

Justice Ojukwu adjourned hearing till September 23.

Subscribe ToNairalaw News!