A Federal High Court sitting in Abuja has set aside the interim order of forfeiture issued on properties belonging to former Deputy Senate President Ike Ekweremadu.
Justice Inyang Ekwo vacated the order following a discovery that the forfeiture order was fraudulently obtained by the Federal Government against the properties.
The judge, while lifting the order, held that the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) which obtained the order on behalf of the Federal Government, concealed information that led to granting it.
Specifically, Justice Ekwo said that EFCC, which was fully aware that Ekweremadu was in custody in the United Kingdom, failed to make the vital information available to the court.
With his detention in London, the Judge agreed with Chief Adegboyega Awomolo SAN, counsel to Ekweremadu, that there was no way the former Deputy Senate President would be opportune to defend his ownership of the disputed properties.
Justice Ekwo had, on November 4 last year, issued the interim forfeiture order in favour of the Federal Government following an ex-parte application brought before him by EFCC.
The Judge specifically directed that anybody who had an interest in the forfeited properties should indicate within 14 days of the publication of the interim forfeiture order from the court.
The former Deputy Senate President and his wife are currently standing trial in the United Kingdom over alleged organ harvesting.
Ekwo had on November 4, ordered the interim forfeiture of properties reportedly linked to the lawmaker.
He ordered the anti-graft agency to publish the order in a national daily within seven days from the date it was given.
Also, Ekweremadu’s son, Lloyd filed a motion on notice marked: FHC/ABJ/CS/1242/2022 through his lawyer, Adegboyega Awomolo, praying the court for an order setting aside the interim forfeiture order.
In the motion predicated on four grounds, Llyod averred that the EFCC, in its ex-parte originating motion, “deliberately and fraudulently omitted very critical facts/evidence, which negates the granting of the application”.
He alleged that the EFCC wrote a letter to the London court that made the court refuse to admit his father to bail.
Among others, he alleged that the EFCC was fully aware that his father was in detention in London when the application for forfeiture of the properties was filed.
He said the anti-graft agency deliberately refused to disclose to the court that his father was in detention in the UK and would not be able to counter the forfeiture request.
He, therefore, prayed the court to set aside the forfeiture order and stay proceedings on the matter until his father’s ordeal in the UK is resolved.
Responding, the EFCC, through, Silvanus Tahir, its counsel, refuted the claim that it was responsible for Ekweremadu’s detention in the UK.
Tahir acknowledged that the agency wrote the UK court in response to a particular request, but claimed that sharing information that is advantageous to both parties is standard procedure for anti-corruption organisations across the globe.