Court to rule on EFCC’s forfeiture request against jailed ex-minister Mamman’s assets

The Federal High Court in Abuja on Wednesday fixed 2 July for ruling on an application by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) seeking the final forfeiture of five additional properties linked to former Minister of Power Saleh Mamman, who was convicted and sentenced in May to 75 years’ imprisonment for money laundering.

Judge James Omotosho fixed the date after hearing arguments from EFCC lawyer Abbas Muhammed and Mr Mamman’s lawyer, Femi Atteh, a Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN).

The properties include Walijam Apartments at No. 43 Plot 435, Lobito Crescent, Wuse 2, Abuja, and Bloom Luxury Suites Nigeria Limited at No. 5 Amana Crescent, New Estate, Unguwan Rimi, Kaduna State.

Others are a mansion at No. 11 Misratah Street, Wuse 2, Abuja; a mansion at No. 13 Misratah Street, Wuse 2, Abuja; and A.U.A Plaza at Plot 734 Kade Street, Wuse 2, Abuja.

| | | |---|

EFCC is seeking to add the assets to the list of those the judge already ordered to be forfeited to the federal government based on the conviction of Mr Mamman.

In his 13 May judgement sentencing of the former minister, the judge ordered the final forfeiture of properties located in choice areas of Abuja and sums recovered in different currencies by the EFCC.

The latest application before the court seeks the forfeiture of five additional properties allegedly linked to Mr Mamman.

At the proceedings, Mr Muhammed informed the court that the EFCC had filed a motion seeking a final forfeiture order in respect of the properties.

He added that the motion, filed on 25 May, had been served on the defence.

On the other hand, Mr Atteh confirmed receipt of the application and informed the court that the defence had filed a counter affidavit.

The lawyer argued that the court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the forfeiture application because it had already delivered judgement in the criminal case.

According to him, any attempt to forfeit the properties after conviction ought to be pursued through a separate action.

He argued that the court had become “functus officio” and could no longer determine the application. In essence, he meant that the court’s role in the criminal case ended once it delivered its judgment.

Besides, the lawyer noted that an appeal has been filed to challenge the conviction.

EFCC rejects claims

Responding, EFCC’s lawyer, Mr Muhammed, argued that although the court had convicted and sentenced Mr Mamman, it retained jurisdiction to determine the forfeiture application.

He said the court, in its judgement, found that the former minister siphoned about N22 billion from the N33.8 billion involved in the charges against him.

According to him, the anti-graft agency had recovered less than N2 billion despite previous forfeiture orders. “So this honourable court has the power,” he argued.

On the appeal filed to challenge Mr Mamman’s conviction, Mr Muhammed said the appeal had not been entered, therefore, no appeal number had been assigned.

He urged the court to assume jurisdiction and grant the application.

The EFCC lawyer asked the court to issue a consequential order forfeiting the properties to the federal government.

In response, Mr Atteh relied on the defence’s counter-affidavit filed on 5 June and urged the court to dismiss the application.

He argued that some of the properties belonged to persons who were not parties to the criminal trial.

“The question is, are these parties being given a fair hearing?” he asked and cited judicial authorities in support of his argument that the court had completed its function in the matter.

He urged the judge to dismiss the application for lacking merit.

After hearing both parties, Judge Omotosho adjourned until 2 July for ruling.

The judge convicted Mr Mamman on all counts on 7 May and sentenced him on 13 May to 75 years’ imprisonment for money laundering involving public funds.

The judge also issued a warrant for his arrest after he repeatedly failed to appear in court, including during his conviction and sentencing.

Following surveillance and intelligence operations, EFCC operatives arrested him on 19 May at a hideout in the Rigasa area of Kaduna State.

The agency also arrested Shamsudeen Mohammed, a relative who was found with him.

When the EFCC brought Mr Mamman to court on 26 May, the judge ordered that he be remanded at the Kuje Custodial Centre to begin serving his sentence.

On the same day, the court fixed 8 June for hearing of the EFCC’s application seeking the forfeiture of five additional properties allegedly linked to the former minister.

The judge said the date was fixed in the interest of fair hearing after being informed that defence lawyer Mohammed Ahmed had left the courtroom without notifying either the court or the prosecution.

Affidavit describing conviction judgment as ’emotional outburst’ struck out

Earlier, Mr Atteh sought the court’s permission to address an affidavit of facts filed on 22 May by a lawyer in his chamber, Mohammed Ahmed.

PREMIUM TIMES reported that the judge on 10 June summoned Mr Ahmed over an affidavit that described the judgment convicting Mr Mamman as an “emotional outburst.”

The affidavit prompted Judge Omotosho to order the lawyer to appear before him and explain the statements.

On Wednesday, Mr Atteh apologised to the court on behalf of the lawyer.

He said he was not present when the affidavit was filed but accepted responsibility as head of the defence team.

“I want to apologise on this and I want your lordship to grant a pardon to us,” he said. He further asked the court to allow the defence to withdraw the affidavit and strike it out.

The prosecution did not oppose the request.

Although the judge said he was unsure whether Mr Atteh was aware of the affidavit when it was filed, he directed that Mr Ahmed be given an opportunity to address the court.

But Mr Atteh informed the court that Mr Ahmed was absent from court because he was indisposed.

He added that the lawyer’s absence was not intended to disobey the court’s order.

The judge subsequently granted the application and struck out the affidavit.