The Court of Appeal in Lagos has affirmed the final forfeiture of N293.97 million, several properties and investment assets linked to a retired major-general, Emmanuel Atewe, to the federal government.
In a unanimous judgement delivered on Wednesday, Justice Boloukuromo Ugo dismissed Mr Atewe’s appeal against the judgement of the Federal High Court in Lagos, which had ordered the final forfeiture of the assets following an application by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC).
The appellate court upheld the judgement of a trial judge Chukwujekwu Aneke, holding that the appeal lacked merit.
The assets include N293.97 million, 30,000 MTN-linked units in Stanbic IBTC Asset Management Limited and several properties in Abuja and Bayelsa State.
They include plots of land along the Outer Northern Expressway, Jahi, Sabon Lugbe, Kuje, Gaube Farmland Extension II Layout and Sector Centre B Layout, all in Abuja, as well as a commercial property in Yenagoa, Bayelsa State.
The EFCC stated that its investigation linked the assets to funds allegedly diverted from money released for the operations of the Joint Task Force, Operation Pulo Shield.
The commission alleged that about N8.537 billion released to the task force was diverted through a network of companies and individuals acting as proxies.
According to the EFCC, billions of naira were transferred to companies for services that were never rendered, while portions of the funds were later used to acquire assets allegedly linked to Mr Atewe through companies associated with him.
The case formed part of a wider fraud investigation involving the alleged diversion of funds meant for Operation Pulo Shield.
The investigation also led to the prosecution of former Director-General of the Nigerian Maritime Administration and Safety Agency, Patrick Akpobolokemi, and others.
The EFCC specifically noted that N297 million traced to Cisco Nobots Limited was used in a property transaction in Port Harcourt, from which N290 million was later recovered by the commission.
The Federal High Court initially granted an interim forfeiture order over the assets. It later made the order final after finding that Mr Atewe had failed to satisfactorily explain their legitimate source.
It was that decision that Mr Atewe challenged before the Court of Appeal.
He argued, among other things, that the forfeiture proceedings were incompetent because he was entitled to the protection provided under Section 123 of the Armed Forces Act.
He also argued that the proceedings should not have commenced while criminal charges against him were pending and that the Federal High Court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the EFCC’s application.
The Court of Appeal, however, rejected the arguments.
On the protection under Section 123 of the Armed Forces Act, the court held that the provision did not apply to Mr Atewe because he was a retired military officer when the forfeiture proceedings were instituted.
The court noted that Mr Atewe had admitted his retirement in an affidavit filed before the trial court and held that the statutory protection applied only to serving members of the Armed Forces.
The appellate court also held that Mr Atewe failed to sufficiently demonstrate how he legitimately acquired the assets.
It said his explanations, which referred to honoraria, did not establish a lawful source for the assets.
The court further rejected his argument that the forfeiture proceedings amounted to an abuse of court process because they were instituted while his money laundering trial was pending.
It stated that the commencement of civil forfeiture proceedings during the pendency of criminal proceedings did not, in itself, constitute an abuse of judicial process.
The Court of Appeal consequently dismissed the appeal and affirmed the lower court’s order for the final forfeiture of the assets to the Federal Government.
