Court of Appeal Sets Aside Forfeiture Order on 14 Properties Linked to Governor Yahaya Bello
The Court of Appeal, Lagos Division, on Wednesday set aside a ruling of the Federal High Court that struck out an interim forfeiture order obtained by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) for 14 properties allegedly linked to Kogi State Governor Yahaya Bello.
Delivering a unanimous judgment virtually, Justice Yargata Nimpar, alongside Justices Danlami Senchi and Paul Bassi, held that the lower court erred in law by relying on Section 308 of the 1999 Constitution to strike out the matter, instead of determining whether the properties should be permanently forfeited.
Justice Nimpar restored the interim preservation order and directed the EFCC to proceed with a hearing on the final forfeiture of the properties.
The EFCC’s legal team was led by Rotimi Oyedepo (SAN), with Bilkisu Buhari-Bala and Hanatu Kofanaisa also appearing in the matter.
The case originated at the Federal High Court in Lagos, where Justice Nicholas Oweibo had earlier granted an interim forfeiture order in favour of the EFCC.
Obtained through an ex parte application, the order allowed the anti-graft agency to temporarily seize 14 properties located in Lagos, Abuja, and Dubai, United Arab Emirates (UAE), suspected to be proceeds of unlawful activity.
The court had also directed the EFCC to publish the order in two national newspapers, inviting interested parties to show cause why the properties should not be permanently forfeited to the Federal Government.
Following the publication, Governor Bello filed a notice of intention to oppose the forfeiture and applied to vacate the interim order.
He argued that the properties were acquired before his election as governor and therefore could not have been bought with Kogi State funds.
Bello invoked Section 308 of the Constitution, which grants immunity to sitting governors from civil and criminal proceedings, contending that the EFCC lacked the authority to initiate any action against him while in office.
His legal team also argued that the Proceeds of Crime Act, 2022, could not be applied retrospectively, since the properties were allegedly acquired before the law came into effect.
They further claimed that the EFCC’s action violated an order of a Kogi State High Court restraining the agency from investigating the state’s accounts.
Additionally, Bello maintained that the Federal High Court in Lagos lacked jurisdiction, as the properties were located in Abuja, Kogi, and Dubai, and he resides in Lokoja.
In response, EFCC counsel Rotimi Oyedepo (SAN) urged the court to uphold the interim forfeiture order, arguing that no Nigerian court had barred the commission from performing its constitutional duties.
He asserted that the properties—including a luxury apartment in the Burj Khalifa, Dubai—were reasonably suspected to be proceeds of unlawful activity, and sought the forfeiture of an additional ₦400 million linked to the same investigation.
However, Justice Oweibo ruled in Bello’s favour, holding that Section 308 of the Constitution shielded a sitting governor from any form of civil or criminal proceedings.
The judge concluded that the court lacked jurisdiction and struck out the case.
Dissatisfied with the decision, the EFCC filed an appeal, urging the Court of Appeal to restore the interim forfeiture order.
In its ruling, the appellate court agreed with the EFCC.
Justice Nimpar held that the constitutional immunity granted to sitting governors does not extend to properties suspected to be proceeds of unlawful activity, which can be investigated and preserved pending a final forfeiture application.
“The trial court erred in striking out the case rather than proceeding to determine whether the properties should be finally forfeited,” the court ruled.
The Court of Appeal dismissed Bello’s preliminary objection as lacking merit, reinstated the interim forfeiture order, and directed the EFCC to continue with the final forfeiture hearing.
