The trial Judge, Justice Nnamdi Dimgba, who gave the order in an exparte application filed by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC), also dismissed Patience Jonathan’s objection to the application for lacking in merit.
The properties, situated at Plot No. 1960, Cadastral Zone A05, Maitama District, and Plot No. 1350, Cadastral Zone A00, both in Abuja, were said to be in the name of Ariwabai Aruera Reachout Foundation, which has linked to the former first lady.
The trial Judge said the forfeiture must last for only 45 days within which the anti-graft agency must conclude its investigations.
EFCC had, in an exparte motion asked the court to order an interim seizure of the properties traced to the former first lady, which the anti-graft agency claimed were subject to an ongoing investigation.
Justice Dimgba, in his ruling, ordered the interim forfeiture, which he, however, ruled must only last for 45 days.
He ruled that within the 45 days, EFCC must conclude its investigations and charge the suspects being investigated in respect of the alleged crimes linked to properties.
He, however, added that the EFCC was at liberty to file an application for the extension of the lifespan of the order before the expiration of the initial 45 days.
The Judge also ordered that if for any reason EFCC’s officials needed to access the properties within the period of interim forfeiture, they must do so with the respondents in attendance.
He ordered that the inventory of the fixtures in the properties and a report to that effect be submitted to the court.
Dimgga had, on, January 22, ordered the investigation of the claim by the first lady, through her counsel to the first lady, Chief Mike Ozekhome (SAN) that the said properties have been demolished by agents of the Federal Government.
ALSO READ: Reps order banks to unfreeze Jonathan’s wife accounts
But, the Counsel to EFCC, Rimamsomte Ezekiel, told the court that its investigations showed that the said properties it seeks to freeze were not the ones demolished by agents of the government as claimed by the respondent.
He, however, said he has filed a counter affidavit, challenging the veracity of the respondent’s claims.
Chief Ozekhome, in his response, refuted the claim by the EFCC, lamenting that, if not for the insecurity in the country, the respondent would have moved the court to the demolished cite to personally confirm for itself.
He told the court that the respondent is in possession of a CD (compact disk) of the demolished building which it would present to the court at the next sitting.
While describing as a lie the counter affidavit filed by the applicant, Ozekhome claimed that the EFCC destroyed two of the four buildings and only took pictures of the two remaining buildings from the back.
He maintained that even if it was a room that was demolished, the applicant does not have the right to do so since the matter was already in court.
and then