HEDA petitions EFCC over alleged illicit transfer by Nigerian senator

The Human and Environmental Development Agenda (HEDA Resource Centre) has petitioned the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC), demanding an investigation into the alleged illicit transfer of £400,000 from Nigeria to the United Kingdom.

Join the Premium Times WhatsApp Community For Quick Access To News and Happenings Around You.

Open in WhatsApp

According to UK court documents, the money was allegedly transferred out of Nigeria through unlicensed Bureau De Change (BDC) operators between April and May 2015 by Marshall Katung, a Nigerian senator representing Kaduna South. Mr Katung’s wife, Abigail Katung, told the court that the funds were used to make an initial deposit on a £1,000,000 property in the UK.

The petition, signed by HEDA’s Chairman, Olanrewaju Suraju, was addressed to the EFCC Chairman, Olanipekun Olukoyede. The petition called for the probe, prosecution, and repatriation of the funds suspected to be proceeds of criminal conduct.

PREMIUM TIMES exclusively reported how a UK High Court granted a forfeiture order on a property occupied by Mrs Katung, who became the first person of African descent to hold the position of the Lord Mayor of Leeds.

Stay Ahead with Premium Times

Add as a preferred source on Google

The property, occupied by Mrs Katung and her two children, was previously owned by Mansoor Hussain – a businessman in Leeds accused by the UK’s National Crime Agency (NCA) of having links to serious criminals and money laundering.

Mrs Katung filed an interest claim in the house because she had entered into an agreement with the previous owner to purchase the house in 2015. She paid Mr Hussain £400,000 of the contracted £1,000,000 purchase price.

Court documents revealed that the majority of funds used for Mrs Katung’s deposit were the funds transferred from Nigeria to the UK via the Bureau De Change operation she described as a “parallel” or “black” market.

In his ruling, Justice Jay of the UK High Court noted there were “telling omissions” from her evidence, and the court was “not satisfied that she was a particularly reliable witness”.

Mrs Katung did not provide an “adequate, documented explanation” of the transaction. Therefore, the judge ruled that she was “conducting a business in foreign exchange transactions to circumvent Nigerian foreign exchange regulations and/or to avoid a punitive exchange rate.”

The National Crime Agency (NCA) had argued that the entire property was acquired through criminal proceeds and thus recoverable under the UK’s Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (POCA).

The NCA will be entitled to damages for Mrs Katung’s use and occupation of the house since 2020, as well as to its costs, the judge said.

The court ruled that Mrs Katung could not adequately justify the source of the funds, and that some of the BDCs she claimed were involved, including My Honey Oil Interbiz Ltd, were not found on the Central Bank of Nigeria’s list of licensed operators as of June 2021.

Citing findings from PREMIUM TIMES reports, HEDA emphasised that the court ruling presents clear evidence of illicit financial flows from Nigeria and urged the anti-graft agency to act without delay.

The civil organisation called on the EFCC to investigate all parties involved, including the senator and the implicated BDC operators, and begin the legal process of recovering the full £400,000 transferred abroad towards the acquisition of that property.

ALSO READ: ‘I was investigated for being privy to illicit transfer of funds,” — Obanikoro admits

“Corruption and money laundering are criminal offences with no statute of limitation. Prosecution can be initiated at any point once evidence emerges,” Mr Suraju stated.

HEDA commended the EFCC’s ongoing efforts in fighting corruption and expressed confidence in the Commission’s willingness to act swiftly on the matter.

Mrs Katung later said she has appealed the High Court judgement granting forfeiture of her house to the NCA.

“The house has not been seized yet as there’s now an appeal lodged in the court. There is no point in disguising my upset at the terms of the judgment. I need to make two things clear,” she said.

“First, I intend to appeal on both the facts and the law. Particularly, the judgment reflects neither my consistent account nor the documentation I provided. Because it is plainly not appropriate for me to comment on the details of the appeal, which will be considered by a higher court in due course, that is all I can sensibly say for now.”