The Lagos Division of the Court of Appeal has upheld the final forfeiture of over N293.97m, multiple properties and investment assets linked to retired Major General Emmanuel Jebe Atewe, affirming an earlier judgment of the Federal High Court that handed the assets to the Federal Government.
In a unanimous judgment delivered on Wednesday by Justice Boloukuromo Moses Ugo, the appellate court dismissed Atewe’s appeal against the ruling of Justice Chukwujekwu Aneke, who had granted the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC)’s application for the final forfeiture of the assets.
The forfeited assets include N293,970,000 in cash, 30,000 MTN-linked units in Stanbic IBTC Asset Management Limited, and several high-value properties in Abuja located in Jahi, Sabon Lugbe, Kuje, Gaube Farmland Extension II Layout, Sector Centre B Layout, and the Outer Northern Expressway. Also forfeited is a commercial property in Yenagoa, Bayelsa State.
According to the EFCC, investigations traced the assets to funds suspected to be proceeds of unlawful activities linked to the alleged diversion of money released for the operations of the Joint Task Force, Operation Pulo Shield.
The anti-graft agency said about N8.537bn meant for the military operation was allegedly diverted through a network of companies and individuals acting as proxies. Investigators alleged that billions of naira were paid to companies for services that were never rendered, with part of the money allegedly used to acquire assets linked to Atewe through associated companies.
The EFCC further stated that N297m traced to Cisco Nobots Limited was used in a property transaction in Port Harcourt, from which N290m was eventually recovered.
The Federal High Court had first granted an interim forfeiture order before making it final after holding that Atewe failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for the legitimate source of the assets.
Atewe challenged the decision at the Court of Appeal, arguing that the forfeiture proceedings were incompetent because he was entitled to protection under Section 123 of the Armed Forces Act, that the proceedings should not have commenced while criminal charges against him were pending, and that the Federal High Court lacked jurisdiction.
However, the appellate court rejected all the arguments.
The court held that Section 123 of the Armed Forces Act did not apply because Atewe had already retired from military service before the forfeiture proceedings commenced.
It noted that Atewe himself admitted his retirement in an affidavit before the lower court and ruled that the statutory protection applies only to serving military personnel.
The court also found that Atewe failed to establish the lawful source of the assets, observing that his explanations merely referred to honoraria without sufficiently accounting for how the properties and funds were acquired.
On his argument that the civil forfeiture case should not have proceeded while his money laundering trial was pending, the Court of Appeal ruled that civil forfeiture proceedings can lawfully run alongside criminal proceedings and do not amount to an abuse of court process.
Consequently, the appellate court dismissed the appeal for lacking merit and affirmed the Federal High Court’s order forfeiting the assets to the Federal Government.
(The Whistler)
