•Firm queries probe by EFCC, others
Federal High Court in Abuja has rejected the request of the Special Presidential Investigation Panel for the Recovery of Public Property (SPIPRPP) for an interim forfeiture order on about nine accounts of Blaid Properties Limited, in Access Bank Plc.
Justice Adeniyi Ademola rejected the prayer in an ex-parte ruling he gave on December 5 in the suit marked: FHC/ABJ/CS/1114/17, after listening to the applicants’ lawyer, Louis Ezionye.Other applicants in the case are the Federal Government and Attorney-General of the Federation (AGF).
Before the ruling, the court declined to hear Blaid Properties’ lawyer, Ade Adedeji (SAN), because the application was ex-parte, (only applicant can be heard). The judge relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in: 7Up Bottling Company Ltd vs. Abiola and Sons Limited (1995) 3 NWLR part 383 at 275.
Justice Ademola rejected the applicants’ prayers contained in reliefs one and two, but granted the third relief, that the applicants must publish, in two national dailies, a notice inviting anyone with interests in the funds, in respect of which they had sought a forfeiture order, to show cause why a final order should not be made forfeiting the funds to the government.
The first rejected relief was a prayer for an order of interim forfeiture of the funds.
The other was a prayer for an order directing the service of the interim forfeiture order on the directors of Access Bank, “ordering them to stop all outward payments from the subject accounts and to immediately deliver to the court, the statement of accounts, accounts opening package, all investment portfolios (with certificate of authentication and other relevant documents) as at the date and time of service of the court order on them.”
Justice Ademola adjourned to December 22 for hearing of all pending applications, including one by Blaid Properties, challenging among others, SPIPRPP’s sudden interest in its bank accounts, which, it said, had been investigated by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) and the Independent Corrupt Practices and other related offences Commission (ICPC), without any unpleasant discovery.
According to court documents, the EFCC investigated the same set of accounts last year, during which Justice Ademola, on July 1, 2016, in an application marked: FHC/ABJ/CS/432/2016, granted it an interim forfeiture order in relation to the accounts, numbering 14, held by Blaid Properties, Blaid Construction Ltd and one of their directors: Ochuko Oghene Momoh, in Access and Diamond banks.
Although the interim forfeiture order was meant to last for three months, the EFCC, after the conclusion of its investigation, never returned to the court for either a renewal of the forfeiture order or for permanent forfeiture of the funds. It also did not return to the court with its findings.
Court documents, sourced by The Nation, also revealed that the ICPC had developed interest in the same set of accounts in 2015, particularly those held by Blaid Construction and one of its directors: Mrs. Ochuko Momoh, in Ecobank Plc, and was investigating them until the EFCC came in in 2016.
The Nation found that, although the ICPC seized the accounts in Ecobank since September 23, 2015, it only, last April 6, filed an ex-parte motion marked: FCT/HC/M/5388/17 for an interim forfeiture order in respect of the accounts, which Justice Olukayode Adeniyi of the High Court of the FCT in Apo, granted on June 14.
Blaid and Mrs. Momoh later challenged the interim forfeiture order, alleging among others, that the ICPC obtained the order by fraud, through concealment of facts from the court, a position Justice Adeniyi upheld in his subsequent ruling on November 6 this year and set aside the forfeiture order.
In his November 6 ruling, Justice Adeniyi said; “On the basis of the totality of the facts presented by both parties, particularly facts emerging from the counter affidavits filed by the applicant (ICPC) against the affidavit to show cause, filed by the respondents (Blaid Construction and Mrs. Momoh, and the relevant provisions of the ICPC Act under review, the court us satisfied of the following facts:
- That the applicant (ICPC) concealed facts, in obtaining from the court, the interim forfeiture order made on 14/06/2017 against funds in the 2ndrespondent’s (Blaid Construction’s) account with Ecobank.
- That prior to the filing of the ex-parte application for forfeiture of the 2ndrespondent’s assets with Ecobank, the respondents have satisfactorily explained to the applicant details of her business activities to which the funds in her account at Ecobank are related, hence the request by the applicant for the respondent to provide a bond to secure the funds, which was provided.
- That the funds in the account of the 2ndrespondent with Ecobank was not being used in pursuit of commission of any known offence provided in sections 8 to 19 of the ICPC Act or any other law for that matter.