Former Managing Director of the Nigerian National Petroleum Corporation (NNPC), Mr Andrew Yakubu, has asked the Federal High Court sitting in Kano to set aside the order of forfeiture granted to the Federal Government by the court.
This was as he wants the court to set aside the order and return the $9,772,800 and £74,000,000 belonging to him because the court made the order without jurisdiction
- Ex-NNPC boss claims $9.8m (N5bn) is gift
- N5bn recovered from former NNPC GMD’s private home, not shocking ― Igbokwe
Yakubu, through his counsel, Ahmed Raji, said the court lacked the territorial jurisdiction to entertain the matter, being one related to a crime alleged to have been committed in Abuja outside the territorial jurisdiction of this noble court.
In a motion on notice, FHC/ICN/CS/24/2017, Raji argued that by Section 45 of the Federal High Court Act, an offence shall be tried only by a court exercising jurisdiction in the area or place where the offence was committed.
According to the senior advocate, “no aspect of the perceived offence in respect of which the order of February 13 was made, was committed within the Kano judicial division of this court.”
He said the Federal Government lacked the competence (locus standi) to seek the interim order of the court granted on February 13.
“By Section 28 of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) Act, only the commission, that is the EFCC has the vires to seek an order for the interim forfeiture of property under the Act. “The power of this court to make interim forfeiture order(s) pursuant to Sections 28 and 29 of the EFCC Act, 2004 (hereinafter “EFCC Act”) is applicable only to alleged offences charged under the EFCC Act and not to offences recognisable under any other law.
“The ex parte order of this court, dated February 13, was made in respect of alleged offences under the Independent Corrupt Practices and other Related Offences Commission Act (hereinafter “ICPC Act”) and not the EFCC Act as prescribed by Section 28 and 29 thereof.
“The conditions precedent to the grant of an interim forfeiture order under Sections 28 and 29 of the EFCC Act were not complied with by the applicant before the order was made,” Raji argued in the motion.
He further argued that the combined effect of Sections 28 and 29 of the EFCC Act was that a charge alleging infractions against the provisions of the EFCC Act ought to be brought against a suspect before the powers of this court under Sections 28 and 29 of the EFCC Act, to order interim forfeiture of property, can be actuated.
He said that without a formal charge, no prima facie evidence can be established in order for the provisions of Section 28 and 29 of the EFCC Act to be actuated.
and then