![Dr Muhammad Ali Pate, CEO of Gavi Alliance. [PHOTO CREDIT: Twitter handle of Atiku Abubakar]](https://i0.wp.com/media.premiumtimesng.com/wp-content/files/2023/02/Dr-Muhammad-Ali-Pate.jpeg?fit=1080%2C720&ssl=1)
The Court of Appeal in Abuja has upheld the permanent forfeiture of N1.582 billion to the Federal Government of Nigeria, affirming a ruling earlier granted by the Federal High Court.
Delivering judgement on Friday, a panel of justices led by Okon Abang unanimously dismissed the appeals filed by Steve Ogidan, a private consultant, and Aliyu Abbati Abdulhameed, a former Managing Director of the Nigeria Incentive-Based Risk Sharing System for Agricultural Lending (NIRSAL).
|
|
The court affirmed that the trial court was right in granting the final forfeiture, especially as one of the appellants had voluntarily returned the funds to the government through the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC).
According to a statement shared on Friday by EFCC spokesperson Dele Oyewale, the appellate court upheld the 22 January ruling by trial judge Inyang Ekwo of the Federal High Court, Abuja, which ordered the final forfeiture of the sum.
|
|
|
|---|
The funds were linked to allegations of bribery, criminal breach of trust, and money laundering involving the two men in relation to NIRSAL’s project oversight scheme.
Background
In February 2024, the EFCC secured an interim forfeiture order on the same amount, following a court application filed under Suit No: FHC/ABJ/CS/1686/2023.
The anti-graft agency alleged that the funds were proceeds of unlawful activities, specifically bribes Mr Ogidan allegedly collected from field consultants he was supposed to supervise under the NIRSAL Project Monitoring, Reporting and Remediation Offices (PMROs) scheme.
Mr Ogidan served as National Coordinating Consultant for the NIRSAL PMRO system, while Mr Abdulhameed was the agency’s Managing Director.
The EFCC claimed the bribery and misconduct resulted in the abandonment of the project.
In the EFCC statement, Mr Oyewale said, “Investigation by the commission against the duo led the Commission to a reasonable suspicion that Ogidan acquired the sum through illegitimate activities, specifically bribery from consultants he was supposed to monitor and supervise, which resulted in leaving the job totally undone.”
Objection to forfeiture
In his filings at the Federal High Court, Mr Ogidan opposing EFCC’s application for final forfeiture order, claiming that the N1.582 billion represented the legitimate earnings of his consultancy firm, Successory Nigeria Ltd (SNL).
He stated that SNL had been contracted by NIRSAL to implement and manage the PMROs across Nigeria.
He said the contract began in 2017, was renewed multiple times until 2022, and covered 600 field officers nationwide.
According to him, the money was paid as contractual remuneration for services rendered.
Mr Ogidan also filed an affidavit to show cause, alleging that he was coerced into returning the money.
He claimed that while in EFCC custody, he was pressured by then EFCC Chairman Abdulrasheed Bawa (through officials like Mahmud Tukur) to sign an undertaking to refund the money to avoid prosecution.
“I took several loans from friends and financial institutions to pay EFCC the sum of N1,582,000,000,” Mr Ogidan said, attaching a loan agreement with Dignity Finance & Investment Ltd to support his claims.
He further alleged that EFCC targeted him for supporting Mr Abdulhameed’s political ambition and accused him of hiring only Christians and Southerners as zonal consultants — claims the EFCC has denied.
EFCC’s response and counter-affidavit
In response, EFCC investigative officer Mubarak Isa swore a counter-affidavit denying coercing the suspects linked to the funds.
He maintained that Mr Ogidan and other suspects made their statements voluntarily, in the presence of legal counsel.
“The EFCC never made it a condition precedent that unless he made the payment, he would not get his freedom from further harassment,” Mr Isa said.
ALSO READ: Customs hands over $54,000 bribery proceeds to EFCC for probe
He added that the forfeiture application was made in good faith, following Mr Ogidan’s letter through his solicitors requesting case compounding under Section 14(2) of the EFCC Act.
The EFCC lawyer, Faruk Abdullah, had argued before the court that the money was clearly traceable to acts of corruption and no credible reason was shown to prevent its forfeiture.
“No reasonable cause has been shown why the funds subject to the order of interim forfeiture should not be finally forfeited to the Federal Government of Nigeria,” he stated in the EFCC’s application dated 16 April 2024.
After the trial court granted the final forfeiture, both Messrs Ogidan and Abdulhameed filed separate appeals, arguing that Section 17 of the Advance Fee Fraud Act was wrongly applied by the trial court.
‘Why permanent forfeiture order is right’
The appeal was heard on 10 April, and judgement was reserved until 20 June.
In rejecting the appeal, Mr Abang noted that the trial court acted properly, particularly as the appellant had voluntarily returned the sum during the investigation.
“The trial court could not be faulted… especially as the appellant in his voluntary request for an out-of-court settlement willingly returned the sum to the federal government, through the EFCC,” the court ruled.
Discover more from Premium Times Nigeria
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
