Ladipo Sanusi/
A Federal High Court in Lagos has called for oral pieces of evidence in a suit by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) seeking final forfeiture of about $8.4 million and N7.4 billion found in accounts linked to a former Nigerian First Lady, Dame Patience Jonathan.
Justice Mojisola Olatoregun, today in a judgment on the motion for final forfeiture of the sums, held that there were conflicting affidavit pieces of evidence, which could be best resolved if respective parties were called upon to give oral evidence.
EFCC had on April 20, 2018, secured an interim order for the forfeiture of the sums following a motion ex-parte filed and argued before the Court.
Joined as respondents in the suit are: Patience Jonathan, Globus Integrated Services Limited, Finchley Top Homes Ltd., Am-Pm Global Network Limited, Pagmat Oil and Gas Limited and Magel Resort Limited and Esther Oba.
EFCC through its counsel, Rotimi Oyedepo, had On October 29, 2018, moved the motion for final forfeiture of the said sums, urging that same be finally forfeited to the Federal Government.
Meanwhile, defence counsel, Messrs Ifedayo Adedipe (SAN), Chief Mike Ozekhome (SAN), and Mr Ige Asemudara had respectively moved their processes in opposition to the motion for final forfeiture of the money.
The court had on January 15, admitted electronic pieces of evidence presented by respondent counsel, which depicted video exhibits showing various business outfits of the third and sixth respondents.
The court had then adjourned till today for judgment.
However, at the resumed hearing of the matter today, which was slated for judgment in the suit, Justice Olatoregun informed parties that with the conflicting affidavit pieces of evidence before the court, it would be proper for parties in the suit to appear before the Court for oral evidence before judgment could be delivered.
Earlier, the judge had dismissed an application by counsel to the respondents, seeking to set aside the interim forfeiture orders made on April 20, 2018.
The Court held that it was satisfied that the requirement for the grant of the interim orders was met by the EFCC, adding that it was clear that at the time the interim order was made, there was no pending suit elsewhere.
The C
The Court asked if having regards to the provisions of sections 17 of the Advance Fee Fraud and Other Fraud Related Offences Act, as well as the available facts before the court, the applicant has made out a case for final forfeiture of the sums.
The judge noted the various processes filed by parties to the suit which includes, affidavits, counter-affidavits, further affidavits, reply affidavits, written addresses, as well as exhibits.
In adjourning the matter, Justice Olatoregun held: “I have examined the issues raised on both sides and I came to the conclusion after exhaustively going through the affidavits filed by parties, and I found the affidavits conflicting on material facts.
“I believe in the circumstance, that the court cannot rely on its own opinion alone; the conflict must only be determined or resolved by the evidence of parties themselves, particularly as it relates to the source of the funds.
“I believe parties should be heard and cross-examined on this issue.
“Parties are accordingly called upon to give oral testimonies in support of the case presented.”
Justice