Patience Jonathan
Former Nigerian first lady Patience Jonathan

A Federal High Court has fixed January 15 to continue to hear a suit seeking final forfeiture of 8.4 million and N7.4 billion linked to a former First Lady, Patience Jonathan.

The EFCC, on April 20, secured an interim order for the forfeiture, from Justice Mojisola Olatoregun in Lagos through an ex-parte (without notice) application.

Advertise With Us

In the suit, EFCC joined Patience Jonathan, Globus Integrated Services Ltd., and Finchley Top Homes Ltd. as respondents.

Also joined as respondents are: Am-Pm Global Network Ltd., Pagmat Oil and Gas Ltd., Magel Resort Ltd. and Esther Oba.

Following the failure of the court to sit, video evidence by the defense could not take place on Thursday as earlier scheduled.

Rotimi Oyedepo, the counsel to the EFCC, had informed the court at the last adjourned date that he had an application for final forfeiture dated of May 8.

He supported the application with an affidavit deposed to on May 20 by Orji Chukwuma, an EFCC operative.

Oyedepo urged the court to grant the application for final forfeiture.

However, counsel to the first respondent (Patience Jonathan), Ifedayo Adedipe (SAN), urged the court to refuse the application on the ground that sufficient facts had not been placed before the court to warrant a final order.

According to Adedipe, the applicant’s case is that it found money in the accounts of the first respondent, which the anti-graft agency suspected to be proceeds of unlawful activities.

He argued that the first respondent was neither invited by the EFCC nor prosecuted.

Adedipe argued further that the applicant (EFCC) failed to take the preliminary steps but headed to seek an order of forfeiture.

He argued that the depositions by the applicant that the funds represented proceeds of unlawful activities had not been substantiated, noting that Section 36 of the Constitution provided that a person should not be convicted of an offense unless defined and the punishment prescribed.

He submitted that the application was vindictive, urging the court to dismiss it.