The Economic and Financial Crimes Commission, EFCC, has asked the Federal High Court in Abuja to reject former Minister of Petroleum Resources Diezani Alison-Madueke’s attempt to rely on her acquittal by a UK court in her suit seeking to reclaim forfeited assets.
The commission made the request in a further counter-affidavit filed in opposition to Diezani’s application before Justice Inyang Ekwo.
The EFCC argued that the June 17 acquittal by the Southwark Crown Court in London was irrelevant to the issues before the Nigerian court.
On the 1st of July, Justice Ekwo allowed Diezani to present evidence of the UK court’s decision after her application went unchallenged by the EFCC.
Diezani’s lawyer, Godwin Iyinbor, had sought permission to file a further affidavit to place the development before the court.
The UK court had discharged and acquitted the former minister over criminal allegations of bribery.
Diezani subsequently sought to use the development in her suit challenging the EFCC’s actions involving her forfeited assets.
In the amended originating motion marked FHC/ABJ/CS/21/2023, she sued the EFCC as the sole respondent.
When the case came up on Tuesday, Queen-Ubokutom Uwe, counsel to Diezani, told the court that the matter was scheduled for hearing of the EFCC’s preliminary objection and their originating motion.
She, however, informed the court that the commission had served them with a further counter-affidavit shortly before the hearing.
Uwe also reminded the court of their pending application to regularise their processes.
Paul Mgbeoma, counsel for the EFCC, expressed surprise at the continued filing of processes by Diezani’s legal team, saying it appeared as though the matter was an election petition.
Mgbeoma told the court that he was ready to proceed with the hearing.
Also Read: Court agrees Diezani can present acquittal evidence
Justice Ekwo subsequently fixed Nov. 11 for hearing of the pending motions.
In its further counter-affidavit dated and filed on October 5, the EFCC argued that some depositions in Diezani’s application were misleading, immaterial and irrelevant to the substantive issues before the court.
The commission maintained that the Southwark Crown Court proceedings and Diezani’s acquittal concerned a case that was not being prosecuted before a Nigerian court.
It also argued that the public sale notice did not indicate that any of the listed properties belonged to Diezani.
The EFCC further submitted that the forfeiture order covered only items of jewellery and did not extend to other categories of assets or properties.
It argued that Diezani’s further affidavit introduced irrelevant facts and sought to expand the scope of the suit.
The commission therefore urged the court to discountenance the affidavit seeking to present evidence of her UK acquittal.
Also, Diezani’s legal team, led by Prof. Mike Ozekhome, had argued that the UK acquittal was a subsequent material development relevant to the former minister’s challenge to the EFCC’s public auction and sale of properties and personal effects affecting her proprietary rights.
Ozekhome argued that the acquittal was relevant to issues including absence of conviction, fair hearing, due process and the legality of depriving Diezani of her property.
He said Diezani was not asking the Nigerian court to sit on appeal over the UK decision or treat it as automatically conclusive of the Nigerian proceedings.
Rather, he said, the development was being presented as a subsequent material fact that could assist the court in determining the case.
Ozekhome maintained that the acquittal occurred after Diezani filed her earlier processes and could not have been included at the time.
He urged the court to allow the application in the interest of justice, arguing that the EFCC would not suffer prejudice.
NAN
