A retired Army Major-General, Emmanuel Atewe, has lost ₦293.9 million, investment assets and several properties after the Court of Appeal affirmed their final forfeiture to the Federal Government.
The Court of Appeal in Lagos, in a unanimous judgment delivered virtually via Zoom, dismissed Atewe’s appeal and upheld an earlier decision of the Federal High Court, which granted the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission’s (EFCC) application for the permanent forfeiture of the assets.
In the judgment delivered on Wednesday, the three-member appellate panel upheld the ruling of Justice Chukwujekwu Aneke, holding that Atewe’s appeal lacked merit and that the anti-graft agency had established sufficient legal grounds for the forfeiture order.
The court consequently affirmed the forfeiture of ₦293.97 million, 30,000 MTN-linked investment units managed by Stanbic IBTC Asset Management Limited, and several landed properties located in Abuja and Bayelsa State.
The affected properties include plots of land situated along the Outer Northern Expressway, Jahi, Sabon Lugbe, Kuje, Gaube Farmland Extension II Layout and Sector Centre B Layout in the Federal Capital Territory, as well as a commercial property in Yenagoa, Bayelsa State.
The EFCC had told the court that its investigation traced the assets to funds allegedly diverted from allocations released for the operations of the Joint Task Force, Operation Pulo Shield, a military security outfit established to safeguard Nigeria’s oil and gas facilities in the Niger Delta.
According to the commission, about ₦8.537 billion earmarked for the operation was allegedly siphoned through a network of companies and individuals acting as fronts.
The anti-corruption agency alleged that substantial sums were paid to several companies for contracts and services that were never executed, while portions of the diverted funds were subsequently used to acquire properties and investment assets allegedly linked to Atewe through companies associated with him.
The commission stated that the forfeiture proceedings formed part of its wider investigation into the alleged diversion of Operation Pulo Shield funds, an inquiry that also culminated in the prosecution of former Director-General of the Nigerian Maritime Administration and Safety Agency (NIMASA), Patrick Akpobolokemi, and other suspects.
As part of its findings, the EFCC disclosed that ₦297 million traced to Cisco Nobots Limited was used in a property transaction in Port Harcourt, Rivers State, from which it later recovered ₦290 million.
The Federal High Court had initially granted an interim forfeiture order over the assets before making the order absolute after holding that Atewe failed to provide a satisfactory explanation regarding their legitimate source.
Aggrieved by the decision, Atewe approached the Court of Appeal, contending that the forfeiture proceedings were incompetent because he was entitled to the protection afforded by Section 123 of the Armed Forces Act.
He also argued that the EFCC ought not to have commenced civil forfeiture proceedings while criminal money laundering charges against him were still pending and maintained that the Federal High Court lacked the jurisdiction to entertain the application.
However, the appellate court rejected all the grounds of appeal.
On Atewe’s reliance on the Armed Forces Act, the court held that the statutory protection under Section 123 applies exclusively to serving members of the Armed Forces and not retired military personnel.
The court observed that Atewe had admitted in an affidavit filed before the trial court that he had retired from military service before the forfeiture proceedings commenced, making the provision inapplicable to his case.
It further held that Atewe failed to place sufficient credible evidence before the court to establish that the forfeited assets were acquired through legitimate means.
According to the appellate court, his explanation that the assets were funded from honoraria and other earnings did not satisfactorily establish a lawful source of the funds used to acquire them.
The court also dismissed Atewe’s contention that the civil forfeiture proceedings amounted to an abuse of court process because they were initiated while his criminal trial was pending.
It held that civil forfeiture proceedings are distinct from criminal prosecutions and that the pendency of a criminal case does not preclude the EFCC from pursuing forfeiture proceedings where it has established a prima facie basis for doing so.
Having found no merit in any of the issues raised by the appellant, the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal in its entirety and affirmed the judgment of the Federal High Court, ordering the final forfeiture of the cash, investment assets and properties to the Federal Government.