A FEDERAL High Court in Abuja on Monday, granted an application by former Minister of Petroleum, Diezani Alison-Madueke, to amend her suit challenging the order obtained by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) for final forfeiture of her seized assets.
Justice Inyang Ekwo granted the request after the motion was moved by Diezani’s lawyer, Godwin Inyinbor, and the EFCC’s counsel, Divine Oguru, did not oppose it.
When the matter was called, Inyinbor, who appeared for Diezani, informed the court that they had already filed a motion for amendment of their originating process and the defendant had been duly served.
Oguru did not raise any objection to the ex-minister’s plea to amend her suit and Justice Ekwo granted it as prayed.
The judge, who gave Diezani five days to file and serve the amended processes, granted EFCC 14 days from the date of service to respond.
The matter was then adjourned until March 17 for further mention.
This newspaper reports that Justice Ekwo had, on Nov. 21, 2024, fixed today for hearing the motion to amend the originating process.
It is reported that the ex-minister had, through her counsel, Chief Mike Ozekhome, SAN, sued the anti-graft agency as sole respondent.
Alison-Madueke, in the suit marked: FHC/ABJ/CS/21/2023, sought an order extending the time to seek leave to apply to the court for an order to set aside the EFCC’s public notice issued to conduct a public sale on her property.
In the motion dated and filed on Jan. 6, 2023 by her lawyer, the former minister sought five orders from the court.
The former minister, who argued that the various orders were made without jurisdiction, said these “ought to be set aside ex debito justitiae.”
She said she was not given a fair hearing in all the proceedings leading to the orders.
“The various court orders issued in favour of the respondent and upon which the respondent issued the public notice were issued in breach of the applicant’s right to fair hearing as guaranteed by Section 36 (1) of the 1999 Constitution, as altered, and other similar constitutional provisions,” she said.
She argued that she was neither served with the charge sheet and proof of evidence in any of the charges nor any other summons regarding the criminal charges pending against her before the court.
She further argued that the courts were misled into making several final forfeiture orders against her assets through suppression or non-disclosure of material facts.
“The several applications upon which the courts made the final order of forfeiture against the applicant were obtained upon gross misstatements, misrepresentations, non-disclosure, concealment and suppression of material facts.
”The court has the power to set aside same ex debito justitiae, as a void order is as good as if it was never made at all.
“The orders were made without recourse to the constitutional right to fair hearing and right to property accorded the applicant by the constitution.
“The applicant was never served with the processes of court in all the proceedings that led to the order of final forfeiture,” she said, among other grounds given.
The EFCC, in a counter-affidavit deposed to by Rufai Zaki, a detective with the commission, urged the court to dismiss her application.
Mr Zaki, a member of the team that investigated a case of criminal conspiracy, official corruption and money laundering against the ex-minister and some other persons involved in the case, said the investigation had clearly shown that she was involved in some acts of criminality.
He said Mrs Alison-Madueke was therefore charged before the court in charge no: FHC/ABJ/CR/208/2018.
“We hereby rely on the charge FHC/ABJ/CR/208/2018 dated 14 November 2018 filed before this honourable court and also attached as Exhibit C in the applicant’s affidavit,” he said.
The EFCC operative said most of the depositions in Mrs Alison-Madueke’s suit were untrue.
He said contrary to her deposition in the affidavit filed in support of the suit, most of the cases which led to the final forfeiture of the contested property “were action in rem, same was heard at various times and determined by this honourable court.”
He said the courts ordered the commission to do a newspaper publication inviting parties to show cause why the said property should not be forfeited to the federal government before final orders were made.