A new development in Emefiele’s $2.045 million forfeiture case

1 month ago 19
blank

The Federal High Court in Lagos has scheduled November 1, 2024, to deliver a ruling on an application filed by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) seeking the final forfeiture of $2.045 million, seven high-value properties, and shares linked to Godwin Emefiele, former Governor of the Central Bank of Nigeria.....KINDLY READ THE FULL STORY HERE▶

On the same date, the court will address a formal stay of proceedings requested by Emefiele, who seeks to halt the forfeiture process pending his appeal.

On August 15, 2024, the court issued an interim forfeiture order allowing the EFCC to hold Emefiele’s assets temporarily.

The court also mandated that a public notice be issued, inviting any claimants to show cause why the assets should not be permanently forfeited to the Federal Government.

During Friday’s hearing, EFCC counsel Rotimi Oyedepo (SAN) argued in favour of the final forfeiture, asserting that the motion had been uncontested by any interested parties.

“The former CBN governor’s appeal does not halt these proceedings, as no permission for such a stay was granted,” Oyedepo stated, underscoring procedural compliance and the necessity of the final forfeiture.

In opposition, Emefiele’s counsel, Olalekan Ojo (SAN), argued that the balance of evidence weighs against the forfeiture request, contending that the court should reject it.

Ojo presented a formal application to stay the proceedings until the Court of Appeal addresses Emefiele’s request to overturn the interim forfeiture.

Justice Deinde Dipeolu, presiding over the matter, rejected Ojo’s appeal to stay the proceedings, ruling that any appellate intervention must be based on a final decision by the High Court.

“An appeal arises from a decision, yet in this instance, no final decision has been made regarding the case’s core issues,” Dipeolu affirmed.

Oyedepo further challenged the validity of Emefiele’s appeal, suggesting that it lacked substantial grounds, as the defendant had not obtained necessary court approval.