By Attah Ede
The Court of Appeal in Lagos has affirmed the final forfeiture of multiple assets linked to retired Major General Emmanuel Jebe Atewe to the Federal Government, dismissing his appeal against an earlier judgment of the Federal High Court.
The forfeited assets include ₦3.97 million in cash, several plots of land in Abuja, including properties at the Outer Northern Expressway, Jahi, Sabon Lugbe and Kuje, a 50-hectare farmland in Kuje, a parcel of land in Yenagoa Gardens, Bayelsa State, 30,000 MTN shares managed by Stanbic IBTC Asset Management Limited, and other landed properties.
The EFCC had told the trial court that its investigation into the alleged diversion of more than ₦8.5 billion belonging to the Nigerian Maritime Administration and Safety Agency through the Joint Task Force, Operation Pulo Shield, uncovered a network through which funds were allegedly routed via companies and proxies before being used to acquire the assets.
In a unanimous judgment delivered virtually on Wednesday, the appellate court held that Atewe’s appeal lacked merit and resolved all the issues raised in favour of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission.
The three-member panel, presided over by Justice Boloukuromo Ugo, consequently upheld the May 5, 2023 judgment of Justice C. J. Aneke of the Federal High Court, Lagos, which ordered the final forfeiture of the assets.
Atewe had challenged the forfeiture order, arguing that Section 123 of the Armed Forces Act and the decision in General Jafaru Muhammed v. EFCC protected him from the proceedings.
However, the Court of Appeal ruled that the provision relied upon was inapplicable because Atewe is a retired military officer, unlike General Jafaru, who was still serving when his case arose.
The court held that Section 123 of the Armed Forces Act applies only to serving military personnel and could not be invoked by the appellant.
The appellate court further held that the forfeiture proceedings were civil actions directed against the assets themselves and not criminal proceedings against Atewe.
According to the court, Atewe could not provide sufficient evidence indicating the legitimate source of the assets.
It noted that his explanation that the properties were acquired through honoraria lacked details and documentary evidence linking those payments to the acquisition of the assets.
The court also rejected his argument that the civil forfeiture proceedings amounted to an abuse of court process because criminal charges arising from substantially the same transactions were still pending.
It ruled that the EFCC is legally entitled to pursue civil forfeiture proceedings independently of any criminal prosecution.
The anti-graft agency argued that the properties were reasonably suspected to have been acquired with proceeds of unlawful activities and were therefore liable to forfeiture under the Advance Fee Fraud and Other Fraud Related Offences Act.
Justice Aneke had earlier ruled that Atewe failed to satisfactorily explain the lawful source of the assets after the EFCC established reasonable grounds to suspect that they were proceeds of unlawful activities.
The Court of Appeal’s decision has now affirmed that judgment, leaving the forfeiture order in favour of the Federal Government intact.
