Why Emefiele’s Assests Forfeiture Nullified: What Are These Assests

The Court of Appeal in Lagos has nullified the final forfeiture order previously granted over assets belonging to former Central Bank of Nigeria Governor, Godwin Emefiele.

In a two-to-one split decision delivered on April 9, 2025, and detailed in a certified true copy obtained by our correspondent on Sunday, the appellate court overturned the earlier judgment and directed that the case be retried at the lower court.

The Federal High Court in Lagos had earlier, on November 1, 2024, granted the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) a final forfeiture order against Emefiele’s assets.

What Are These Assets?

The assets listed include two fully detached duplexes at No. 17B, Hakeem Odumosu Street, Lekki Phase 1, Lagos; an undeveloped parcel of land measuring 1,919.592 square metres with survey plan No. DS/LS.340 at Oyinkan Abayomi Drive (formerly Queens Drive), Ikoyi, Lagos; a bungalow located at No. 65A Oyinkan Abayomi Drive, Ikoyi, Lagos; and a four-bedroom duplex at No. 12A, Probyn Road, Ikoyi, Lagos.

Other properties include an industrial complex under construction across 22 plots of land in Agbor, Delta State; eight units of uncompleted apartments situated on a plot measuring 2,457.60 square metres at No. 8A Adekunle Lawal Road, Ikoyi, Lagos; and a fully detached duplex on a 2,217.87 square metre plot at No. 2A Bank Road, Ikoyi, Lagos.

In addition, the court had previously ordered the forfeiture of $2,045,000 and share certificates in Queensdorf Global Fund Limited to the Federal Government.

Why Were the Assets Forfeited?

The EFCC argued that the properties were “reasonably suspected to have been acquired with proceeds of unlawful activities.” Emefiele was arraigned on an eight-count charge involving “criminal breach of trust, conspiracy, forgery, and unlawful possession of property suspected to be proceeds of crime to the tune of ₦7,831,002,396.”

Dissatisfied with the trial court’s ruling, Emefiele, through his lead counsel Olalekan Ojo (SAN), appealed, raising five key issues. These included whether the trial judge properly evaluated the evidence, whether Emefiele had sufficiently demonstrated ownership of the properties, and whether the EFCC’s counter-affidavit complied with the law. EFCC counsel Rotimi Oyedepo (SAN) countered that “the appellant did not produce single evidence on how he acquired the forfeited properties,” noting that Emefiele merely presented income figures without proof of how the funds were used to purchase the assets.

Oyedepo stated that none of the properties were registered in Emefiele’s name, but rather in company names in which he held no directorship or shares. “The companies in whose names the properties were acquired did not challenge the forfeiture of the properties,” he added. He also argued that Emefiele failed to declare the forfeited assets to the Code of Conduct Bureau.

Justice Abdulazeez Anka, delivering the lead judgment, noted that “These funds are the legitimate earnings of the appellant,” citing income from Zenith Bank, a severance package exceeding ₦1.75 billion, shares worth ₦500 million, CBN salary of ₦350 million annually, and estacodes of $6.285 million.

However, Justice Anka also acknowledged conflicting claims in the affidavit evidence and ruled that “there is in my view a need to call for further oral as well as documentary evidence.”
The judge ordered a retrial with oral testimonies and cross-examinations, setting aside the forfeiture order but upholding the forfeiture of the $2,045,000.

Justice Mohammed Mustapha agreed with the ruling, stating that Emefiele’s income “was more than enough to buy up the properties in question and even more.” He added that the appellant’s 2014 and 2019 declarations could not have covered assets acquired between 2020 and 2023, a period relevant to the case.

Justice Danlami Senchi, however, dissented, arguing there were no conflicts in the affidavits that justified oral evidence. “The companies whose names were used to purchase and perfect the title… have not filed an affidavit to show cause,” he stated, describing Emefiele’s claim to the properties as that of a “meddlesome interloper.” He dismissed the appeal and affirmed the forfeiture ruling of the trial court.

In conclusion, while two justices supported a retrial based on conflicting evidence, the third maintained that the original ruling was sound. The case has now been sent back to the Federal High Court for a new hearing before a different judge.


Discover more from LN247

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

Advertisement

Most Popular This Week

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Related Posts

Advertisement

Discover more from LN247

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading