JUSTICE Rilwan Aikawa of a Federal High Court, sitting in Lagos,
on Wednesday, ordered the final forfeiture of N28.5 million and some properties belonging to Mr Jamiu Anifowoshe, a director of Finance in the Public Works Department of Lagos state, to the federal government of Nigeria.
The Economic and Financial Crimes Commission said the money and properties are proceeds of unlawful activities.
Properties ordered to be forfeited include: six flats of three bedroom, another six flats of two bedroom, and six flats of 1 bedroom, located at Adewale Osiyeku Street, Offin-Ile Igbogbo-Ikorodu, Lagos: and four flats of three Bedroom duplex, located at 6, Tunde Gabby Close, Dopemu Area Pako Bus Stop Agege, Lagos.
Justice Aikawa also ordered the final forfeiture of a semi-detached three bedroom flat, and one unit of three bedroom terrace at Cranbel Court, Citiview Estate Arepo, Ogun State, and a plot of land situated at Queen’s Garden Estate off Lagos-Ibadan Expressway, to the Federal Government of Nigeria.
The judge had earlier granted an interim order forfeiting the money and the properties to the Federal government after the EFCC made an application.
Justice Aikawa also directed the Federal government to take an administrative step to ensure that both the money and the properties are transferred to the Lagos state government in view of the affidavit before the court.
However, the director through his lawyer, Wole Okenile, said they are appealing the ruling in the next 24 hours.
Specifically, the director said he is going to appeal against the forfeiture of six flats of three bedrooms, another six flats of two bedrooms, and six flats of 1 bedroom, located at Adewale Osiyeku Street, Offin-Ile Igbogbo-Ikorodu, Lagos, which he claimed to have acquired before assuming office of the Director in the Ministry.
Reviewing the case earlier, before reaching his conclusion, Justice Aikawa said Section 17 of the Advance Fee Fraud and other related Offence Act, Number 14, 206, empowers the court to grant an order of forfeiture of properties reasonably suspected to be proceeds of crime to the Federal Government.
The judge said that the respondent in the case did not file any counter-affidavit to challenge the plaintiff”s averment, but was only represented by a counsel who made oral application asking the court to set aside its earlier order of interim forfeiture, on the ground that the applicant failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the properties in contention were stolen.