Former Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN) Governor, Godwin Emefiele, has appealed to the Court of Appeal in Abuja seeking to overturn a High Court ruling that granted the Federal Government takeover of 753 housing units in Abuja.
The properties in question were seized by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) following a court order obtained by the agency. The seizure and subsequent forfeiture of the estate have sparked significant legal contention.
Emefiele, through his legal counsel, A.M. Kotoye, argued that he was unjustly excluded from the forfeiture proceedings despite holding a vested interest in the property.
He maintained that he should have been properly involved in the case, emphasizing his legal and equitable interests in the estate. As such, he is now petitioning the Court of Appeal to reverse the High Court’s decision which authorized the government takeover.
READ ALSO: EFCC Hands Over 753 Properties from Ex-CBN Gov to Ministry
Speaking on his behalf, Emefiele revealed that he was unaware of the forfeiture proceedings until after the court’s ruling. He explained that the EFCC published the interim forfeiture notice in an obscure section of a newspaper, making it difficult for him or his legal team to detect the publication.
Furthermore, Emefiele highlighted that at the time, he was contending with three separate criminal cases across Abuja and Lagos, which significantly limited his capacity to monitor public notices.
Beyond the issue of publication, Emefiele accused the EFCC of deliberately concealing the forfeiture case from him despite their ongoing communications regarding other charges.
He suggested that this lack of transparency compromised his ability to defend his interests adequately in court. However, the trial court dismissed these assertions, ruling that the EFCC had adhered to due process and that publishing the forfeiture notice in the newspaper was a sufficient and lawful step.
The trial judge further clarified that the newspaper notice “could not reasonably be described as hidden,” thereby rejecting Emefiele’s claims of inadequate notification.
This ruling became a focal point in the appeal, with Emefiele’s legal team arguing that the trial court misunderstood the nature of the application and wrongfully dismissed it without properly considering vital evidence and arguments presented.
They contended that the forfeiture order was based largely on “hearsay, suspicion, and no proper evidence,” which undermined the legitimacy of the judgment.
In addition to disputing the process, Emefiele maintained that he has both legal and equitable ownership rights over the housing estate, despite the court’s assertion that he failed to produce sufficient proof of ownership.
He condemned the ruling as a miscarriage of justice, stressing that the trial judge’s failure to adequately evaluate the affidavits and documents before the court was “perverse” and resulted in an unjust decision.
Emefiele went on to argue that the orders for forfeiture were made in violation of his constitutional rights as guaranteed under the 1999 Constitution of Nigeria. He declared that, due to these breaches, the court’s decision is “null and void” and must be set aside.
As the matter proceeds before the Court of Appeal, many await a decisive judgment that will determine the rightful ownership and future control of the seized housing estate, as well as clarify the extent of procedural fairness required in such forfeiture cases.