FIRS Staff Member Forfeits Abuja, Kano Asset to FG

The Federal High Court in Abuja granted the confiscation of the forfeited property.

Two properties that were connected to Aminu Sidi Garunbabba, a senior staff member of the Federal Inland Revenue Service FIRS, have been finally forfeited to the Federal Government as a result of the efforts of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission.

On Thursday, April 3, 2025, Justice Obiora Egwuatu of the Federal High Court in Abuja granted the confiscation of the property.

At Barumark Groove Estate, Plot 667 Cadastral Zone BO3, Wuye District, Abuja, there is a four-bedroom terrace masonite with a boys’ quarter.

Another property, located at No. 5 Lodge Road, Kano State, is also impacted. Both of these homes are located in the same area.

On March 16, 2022, the EFCC, through its counsel, Ekele Iheanacho, SAN, submitted an ex-parte motion, which resulted in the forfeiture order being issued.

Dele Oyewale, who is the Head of Media and Publicity for the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC), issued a statement on Friday stating that the motion was filed in accordance with Section 44(2) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria and Section 17 of the Advance Fee Fraud and Other Related Offences Act, No. 14, 2006.

According to Oyewale, the court had previously granted an interim forfeiture judgment on February 16, 2022. The court had also instructed that the ruling be published in a national newspaper so that any interested party might present their case as to why the properties should not be permanently forfeited.

“Moving the motion for the final forfeiture order at Thursday’s sitting, the prosecution counsel informed the court that the property was reasonably suspected to have been acquired with proceeds of unlawful activities.

“However, the defence counsel in a preliminary objection, raised concerns that a public officer cannot be investigated and prosecuted when an ongoing administrative disciplinary action is yet to be concluded.

“This case targets properties suspected to be proceeds of crime, the two cases are different. A criminal case requires proving beyond reasonable doubt while in this case, only a suspicion suffices. Both actions can go on simultaneously and one cannot abate the other. 

“The parties are different, the target in both cases are different, one is proved beyond reasonable doubt and the other is reasonable suspicion. The issues are also different, a person cannot be allowed to benefit from illegitimate acts.

“The respondent failed to show any reasonable cause that the funds used in purchasing the property is from his legitimate earnings, so the request for final forfeiture is granted.”