Court Sets Aside Interim Forfeiture Order Against Saraki’s Ikoyi Homes

*Dismisses EFCC’s Application For Final Forfeiture

The Federal High Court sitting in Lagos, coram Honourable
Justice Liman today, Thursday, 4th March 2021 in SUIT NO:
FHC/L/CS/1867/2019 between ECONOMIC AND FINANCIAL CRIMES COMMISSION
V. SENATOR BUKOLA ABUBAKAR SARAKI & ANOR set aside its order of
interim forfeiture made against the properties of Senator Olubukola
Abubakar Saraki, the immediate past Senate President, located at 17
and 17A MacDonald Road, Ikoyi, Lagos State.
 
This judgment comes after counsel to the Economic and Financial
Crimes Commission (EFCC) Mr. Nnaemeka Omewa, Esq. and counsel to
Senator Saraki, Mr. Kehinde Ogunwumiju, SAN had adopted their
respective written addresses for and against the making of the
final forfeiture order sought by the EFCC against Senator Saraki’s
properties.
 
In its judgment, the Court held that the essence of an interim
order of forfeiture is to preserve the property from being
dissipated by the suspect and the burden is on the Applicant, that
is the EFCC, to satisfy the Court that the property is a proceed of
unlawful or illegal activity under the corruption laws.

The Court however found that the Applicant had in its affidavit
in support of its motion for final forfeiture stated that the
properties sought to be forfeited were purchased with a personal
loan Senator Saraki obtained from Guaranty Trust Bank.
 
The Court agreed with the Respondent’s counsel’s submission that
the burden of proof for final forfeiture is on the preponderance of
evidence and that the Applicant had failed to show that the monies
used to purchase the property were from the Kwara State government
house account. The court was not satisfied that the Respondent had
paid off the loan used to purchase the property.
 
The evidence of the transactions presented by the Applicant were in
respect of transactions made after he had purchased the property
and the proceeds used for the purchase were legal, that is
loans.

In the final analysis, the Court held that the Applicant failed
to prove its entitlement to the relief of final forfeiture of the
Respondent’s properties, accordingly dismissed the application and
vacated the interim forfeiture order it made on 21st October 2019.
   

*Dismisses EFCC’s Application For Final Forfeiture

The Federal High Court sitting in Lagos, coram Honourable
Justice Liman today, Thursday, 4th March 2021 in SUIT NO:
FHC/L/CS/1867/2019 between ECONOMIC AND FINANCIAL CRIMES COMMISSION
V. SENATOR BUKOLA ABUBAKAR SARAKI & ANOR set aside its order of
interim forfeiture made against the properties of Senator Olubukola
Abubakar Saraki, the immediate past Senate President, located at 17
and 17A MacDonald Road, Ikoyi, Lagos State.
 
This judgment comes after counsel to the Economic and Financial
Crimes Commission (EFCC) Mr. Nnaemeka Omewa, Esq. and counsel to
Senator Saraki, Mr. Kehinde Ogunwumiju, SAN had adopted their
respective written addresses for and against the making of the
final forfeiture order sought by the EFCC against Senator Saraki’s
properties.
 
In its judgment, the Court held that the essence of an interim
order of forfeiture is to preserve the property from being
dissipated by the suspect and the burden is on the Applicant, that
is the EFCC, to satisfy the Court that the property is a proceed of
unlawful or illegal activity under the corruption laws.

The Court however found that the Applicant had in its affidavit
in support of its motion for final forfeiture stated that the
properties sought to be forfeited were purchased with a personal
loan Senator Saraki obtained from Guaranty Trust Bank.
 
The Court agreed with the Respondent’s counsel’s submission that
the burden of proof for final forfeiture is on the preponderance of
evidence and that the Applicant had failed to show that the monies
used to purchase the property were from the Kwara State government
house account. The court was not satisfied that the Respondent had
paid off the loan used to purchase the property.
 
The evidence of the transactions presented by the Applicant were in
respect of transactions made after he had purchased the property
and the proceeds used for the purchase were legal, that is
loans.

In the final analysis, the Court held that the Applicant failed
to prove its entitlement to the relief of final forfeiture of the
Respondent’s properties, accordingly dismissed the application and
vacated the interim forfeiture order it made on 21st October 2019.