Ololade Adeyanju|
A Federal High Court Judge in Lagos has dashed the hope of former Nigerian First Lady, Patience Jonathan, who wanted a judge to stay off her money laundering case.
Justice Mohammed Idris refused an oral application moved by the counsel to Mrs. Jonathan, seeking to restrain another judge of the court, Justice Babs Kuewumi, from taking further steps on the frozen $15.591million that she claimed belonged to her.
Her lawyer, Ifedayo Adedipe, had urged the court to stop Justice Kuewumi from making any order forfeiting the $15.591million, which was frozen by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC), pending the determination of an interlocutory application filed by her client.
Mrs. Jonathan is claiming the sum of $200million against the EFCC, Skye Bank Plc, a former special assistant to ex-president Jonathan, Waripama-Owei Dudafa and four others for what she described as the inconvenience and embarrassment she suffered because of the frozen accounts.
Also joined in the fundamental rights enforcement suit are: Pluto Property and Investment Company Ltd, Seagate Property Development and Investment Company Ltd, Transocean Property and Investment Company Ltd and Globus Integrated Service Ltd.
It will be recalled that the four companies, which the EFCC claimed was used by Dudafa to launder the $15.591million, had pleaded guilty to the offence of money laundering before Justice Kuewumi.
The sum involved in the criminal case is the same money, which the former First Lady claimed belonged to her as the sole signatory to the accounts of the companies.
She, however, denied ownership of the companies.
At the resumed hearing of the matter on Tuesday, the Judge acknowledged a letter from the counsel representing Skye Bank, Lanre Ogunlesi. He stated that he was indisposed and would not be able to come to court.
According to the judge, since Ogunlesi requested for a new date to enable him appear in court, the hearing of the application on notice could not go on.
But before the case could be adjourned, Adedipe urged the court to direct the EFCC not to tamper with the res (subject matter) of the case pending the hearing and determination of the interlocutory application.
Counsel to EFCC, Rotimi Oyedepo, however urged the court to dismiss the application, submitting that the accounts that housed the money had been long frozen, while the identified directors to these companies had pleaded guilty to an offense of conspiracy and money laundering in an ongoing criminal trial before Justice Kuewumi.
Oyedepo said: “We pray the court to dismiss the application with a wave of the hand. There is an order of the court that had convicted the 4th – 7th defendants for warehousing the proceeds of crime.”
The lawyer further argued that the applicant had no locus-standi to move the motion, and if the court grants the order, it would be “extremely” prejudicial to the earlier order made by Justice Kuewumi in the criminal case.
He also expressed doubts on the address that the applicant sent the service of the originating summon on 4th – 7th defendants, as earlier investigations conducted by the anti-graft agency showed that the companies had fictitious addresses.
The third respondent’s counsel, Gboyega Oyewole, however observed that the court bailiff had deposed to an affidavit of service well documented in the court’s file.
Justice Idris, in a short ruling, held that he could not go into the merits or demerits of the interlocutory application until it was moved.
He, however, ordered accelerated hearing of the case while stating that he could not make any order that would be prejudicial to the outcome of the main suit.
The judge then adjourned the case till December 7, 2016, for hearing of the main application.
In her suit, the ex-First Lady urged the court to issue an order discharging the freezing order, and restrain the EFCC and its agents from further placing such order on the said accounts.
In a supporting affidavit, one Sammie Somiari, a legal practitioner, noted that on March 22, 2010, she (Jonathan) had opened five different accounts with Skye Bank, with the aid of one Damola Bolodeoku and Dipo Oshodi.
He added that the account mandate forms were duly completed and signed by her.
According to him, Jonathan subsequently discovered that apart from one of the accounts that bore her name, the other four accounts were opened in the names of four companies which were companies belonging to Dudafa.
He said that she also observed that the ATM cards of the accounts were issued in the names of the companies, and that she complained to Dudafa who promised to effect the necessary changes.
He said Dipo Oshodi also promised to effect the necessary changes.
Somiari further claimed that Jonathan is not a director, shareholder or participant in these companies, and the funds in the said accounts were solely owned and operated by her.
He said: “Dudafa does not own any part of the funds in the said accounts.”
According to the deponent, the Skye Bank official (Oshodi), did not carry out the instructions of the plaintiff to change the name of the said accounts to her name, in spite of repeated request.
He said that notwithstanding the refusal of the bank to effect the necessary changes, she had been using the said ATM cards without any interference.
The deponent revealed that sometimes in July, Mrs. Jonathan had discovered that the ATM cards were not functioning. She allegedly contacted the bank and was informed that a “No debit/freezing order” had been placed on the accounts.
He said that on further enquiry, the bank informed her that the accounts were frozen on the directive of EFCC as a result of ongoing investigations in relation to Dudafa.
Mrs. Jonathan contended that she was never arrested or invited by EFCC prior to the freezing order placed on the accounts, and that the freezing order without an order of the court was unlawful and illegal.
Consequently, Jonathan seeks an order of court, directing the unfreezing of her account forthwith.
She also wants an order restraining the EFCC from taking further steps in relation to the said account pending the determination of the suit.
0