A Federal High Court orders the EFCC to return 27 properties after owners proved lawful acquisition, raising new questions about EFCC procedures and compliance.
The recent judgment delivered by the Federal High Court in Abuja has once again placed the EFCC at the center of public debate over asset seizures and due process.
In a landmark ruling, Justice Joyce Abdulmalik ordered the immediate release of 27 properties that the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) had earlier taken possession of following an interim forfeiture order.
The case has sparked renewed discussions about how the EFCC initiates and manages property forfeiture claims, particularly when private citizens contest such actions.
The dispute began when the EFCC secured an ex-parte interim forfeiture order on March 13, 2025, claiming that the 27 properties were acquired through unlawful means.
As required by law, the Commission published the temporary forfeiture notice in The Punch newspaper on April 4, giving room for any interested parties to step forward.
It was after this publication that two claimants—James Ikechukwu Okwete, alongside his company Jamec West African Limited, and a second claimant, Adebukunola Iyabode Oladapo—asserted ownership over the contested houses.
Okwete and his company laid claim to 26 properties, while Oladapo claimed House No. 12, Fandriana Close in Wuse 2.
Both parties filed detailed affidavits showing how the properties were lawfully acquired.
They insisted that none of the assets were connected to criminal activity or financial misconduct.
These submissions formed the basis of their opposition to the EFCC’s application for a final forfeiture order.
Justice Abdulmalik’s ruling on October 31, 2025, offered a meticulous examination of all evidence presented.
After reviewing the claims, she concluded that the property owners had successfully proven legitimate ownership.
The judge emphasized that the EFCC did not present any substantial contrary evidence capable of invalidating their claims.
Regarding Oladapo’s property, the court noted that the Commission had explicitly stated it had no objection to her affidavit—an admission that strengthened her case.
Consequently, the interim forfeiture order was vacated in its entirety. Justice Abdulmalik directed that all relevant documents, deeds, and property materials be returned immediately to the rightful owners.
She added that the EFCC’s application for final forfeiture had become meaningless since the respondents had effectively established the legitimacy of their assets.
Despite the clarity of the judgment, the property owners raised concerns that the Commission had not yet complied with the court order.
This led their lawyer, Serekowei Larry (SAN), to write a formal letter dated November 27, 2025, to the EFCC Chairman.
In the letter, Larry expressed worry about the Commission’s alleged delay in releasing the properties, noting that the ruling was delivered in the presence of the EFCC’s legal representative.
He stressed that compliance with judicial decisions is not optional but an obligation designed to uphold the rule of law.
Legal analysts observing the matter suggest that this judgment may influence how future forfeiture cases are handled.
Many argue that while the EFCC plays a critical role in combating corruption, the agency must ensure that its actions uphold constitutional rights and follow due process.
Others believe that the ruling reinforces the importance of judicial oversight in preventing excessive or premature government actions.
For the affected property owners, the ruling represents both a legal victory and a reaffirmation of the protection afforded by Nigeria’s justice system.
As stakeholders await the Commission’s full compliance, the case stands as a powerful reminder that even the EFCC must operate within the boundaries of evidence, fairness, and the law.
Ireport247news
