Justice Jude Onwuegbuzie of the Federal Capital Territory (FCT) High Court in Apo, Abuja, has dismissed an application filed by the former Governor of the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN), Mr Godwin Emefiele, seeking to reclaim a vast residential estate in Abuja comprising 753 duplexes and apartments.
The property, situated at Plot 109, Cadastral Zone CO9, Lokogoma District, spans a total area of 150,462.84 square metres.
The Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) had earlier secured both interim and final forfeiture orders in favour of the Federal Government. Although the estate was initially recovered from an unnamed former senior government official, Emefiele filed a motion through his counsel, A.M. Kotoye, SAN, as an interested party.
He sought an extension of time to apply for the setting aside of the forfeiture orders issued on 2 and 24 December 2024, respectively.
Emefiele argued that he was unaware of the forfeiture proceedings, claiming the EFCC had deliberately published the notice of interim forfeiture in an obscure section of a national newspaper, making it difficult for him to respond in time. He further explained that he had been engaged in three separate criminal trials in Abuja and Lagos during the relevant period, making it practically impossible to track the publication.
Additionally, Emefiele accused the EFCC of intentionally concealing the proceedings from him, despite being in regular contact with the agency over other pending legal matters.
In his ruling, Justice Onwuegbuzie acknowledged the argument concerning functus officio—the principle that a court becomes powerless once it has given judgment—but stated that courts retain the authority to revisit decisions under certain conditions.
Referring to Section 17(2) of the Advance Fee Fraud and Other Fraud Related Offences Act, 2006, the judge maintained that the EFCC had met the legal requirement for public notice in forfeiture matters. He rejected the claim that the notice was obscure, noting that a half-page publication in a national daily could not be considered hidden.
Justice Onwuegbuzie also clarified that only parties with a demonstrable interest in forfeited property may seek intervention, drawing a comparison to legal principles governing joinder in civil proceedings.
He concluded that Emefiele had been given more than 14 days to challenge the forfeiture but failed to act within the stipulated period. As a result, the court dismissed his motion and ruled in favour of the EFCC.
