The Federal High Court in Abuja on Wednesday fixed July 2 for ruling on the EFCC’s motion seeking final forfeiture of additional five properties linked to convicted former Minister of Power, Saleh Mamman, to Federal Government.
Justice James Omotosho fixed the date after EFCC lawyer, Abbas Muhammed, and Mamman’s counsel, Femi Atteh, SAN, adopted their processes and presented their arguments for and against the motion.
The News Agency of Nigeria reports that the properties are Walijam Apartments, located at No.43, Plot 435 Lobito Crescent, Wuse 2, Abuja; and Bloom Luxury Suites Nigeria Limited, Located at No 5, Amana Crescent, New Estate Unguwan Rimi, Kaduna State.
Others are a mansion located at No 11, Misratah Street, Wuse 2, Abuja; another mansion on No 13, Misratah Street, Wuse 2, Abuja and A.U.A. Plaza, situated on Plot 734, Kade Street, Wuse 2, Abuja.
When the case was called, Atteh, who appeared for Mamman sought the permission of the court to address the issue of affidavit of facts leading to the judgement filed on May 22 by one of the lawyers in his chamber.
The senior lawyer said though he was not around when the application was filed, he apologized to the court on behalf of the junior counsel.
“I want to apologize for this, and I want your lordship to grant a pardon to us.
“I am the leader of the team, and I will want my lord to permit me to move an application for its withdrawal so that it can be struck out,” he prayed.
The prosecution lawyer, Muhammed, did not opposed the application.
The judge, thereafter, struck out the affidavit of facts, having been withdrawn.
Muhammed then informed the court that he had an application seeking an order for final forfeiture of five properties of Mamman.
He said the motion on notice was filed on May 25 and that the defence had been served.
Atteh acknowledged the receipt of the application but said a counter affidavit had also been filed.
“Are you ready to move it?” the judge asked.
Responding, Atteh informed the court that he had “a strange application” to make.
According to him, we raised the issue of status of court in relation to this application.
He said counsel had the responsibility not to put the court in a state of confusion.
“My opinion is that what the EFCC seek to achieve after Judgement and conviction can only be done if they filed another case,” he said.
He said the court is “functus officio” to hear the motion for final forfeiture of the properties.
But Muhammed disagreed with Atteh’s submission.
Also Read: Mamman gets 75 years jail term for stealing ₦33.8bn
He maintained that though the court had delivered judgement, convicted and sentenced Mamman, “the court is not functus officio to proceed on this application my lord.”
He said in the judgement, the court found that the convict siphoned N22 billion against the N33. 8 billion charges allegedly preferred against the ex-minister.
The lawyer, however, said that out of the N22 billion, the anti-graft agency had only recovered less than N2 billion after the earlier forfeiture.
“So, this honourable court has the power,” he said.
He said he understood that a notice of appeal has been filed, Muhammed argued that the appeal had not been entered and there was no appeal number.
“Therefore, it is our position that this court has jurisdiction to entertain our application,” he said.
Moving the motion, Muhammed said the application was dated and filed on May 25.
He said it sought a consequential order forfeiting the properties attached to the schedule of the application to the Federal Government.
“We adopt all our processes in urging my lord to finally forfeit the properties to the Federal Government,” he said.
Atteh said in opposition, the defence filed a counter affidavit on June 5 with exhibits attached.
The senior lawyer prayed the court to consider their application and dismiss EFCC’s motion for lacking in merit.
He said from the affidavit, some of the properties belonged to parties that were not before the judge during the trial.
“The question is, are these parties being given a fair hearing?” he asked.
Citing a previous case to back his argument, Atteh submitted that the function of the court was already complete.
“For the reasons we have stated in our address, we urge your lordship to discountenance the application as not being meritorious,” he said.
After listening to parties, the judge adjourned the matter until July 2 for ruling.
NAN
