Recently, there was a development concerning the longest serving member of the House of Representatives, Hon Nicholas Mutu Ebomo, in which a judge of the Federal High Court in Abuja acquitted him only for another judge of the same court to give another judgement ordering the forfeiture of funds that were at the heart of the criminal proceedings.
The recent judgement of the Federal High Court in Abuja ordering the forfeiture of funds linked to a company associated with Hon Mutu has not invalidated or superseded the earlier judgement from the court of coordinate jurisdiction which discharged and acquitted the serving member of the House of Representatives and two companies on all criminal charges filed against them by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC).
|
|
Inquiries, including a review of court records relating to the two proceedings, reveal that the judgements arose from separate suits – criminal proceedings and assets forfeiture proceedings – were delivered by different judges with coordinate jurisdiction, and addressed distinct legal issues.
The review further showed that while the earlier judgement determined the criminal liability of Hon Mutu and the companies after a full trial lasting almost seven years, the later proceedings centred on an application for the forfeiture of funds allegedly linked to one of the companies.
|
|
|
|---|
Court records show that on 15 April 2026, Justice F O G Ogunbanjo of the Federal High Court, Abuja, discharged and acquitted Hon. Nicholas Mutu Ebomo, Airworld Technologies Limited and Oyien Homes Limited on all 13 counts contained in a criminal charge instituted by the Federal Government through the EFCC.
The anti-graft agency had alleged that the lawmaker and the companies were involved in transactions amounting to about N320 million in alleged contravention of the Money Laundering (Prohibition) Act.
However, after evaluating the evidence presented by both the prosecution and the defence, Justice Ogunbanjo held that the prosecution failed to establish the essential ingredients of the offences beyond reasonable doubt.
In the judgment, the court ruled: “I therefore give the benefit of doubt to the Defendants and find them not guilty as charged on all the 13 counts of the charge.”
A further examination of judicial records shows that the judgement has neither been stayed, vacated nor set aside by the Court of Appeal or the Supreme Court and therefore remains a valid and subsisting decision of the Federal High Court.
The legal issues were also subject of assets forfeiture proceedings before another judgement delivered by Justice J.O. Abdulmalik of the Federal High Court, Abuja, ordering the forfeiture of funds allegedly linked to one of the companies earlier named in the criminal proceedings.
However, investigations indicate that the two cases are legally distinct.
While Justice Ogunbanjo’s judgement arose from criminal proceedings that culminated in the acquittal of Hon Mutu and the companies, Justice Abdulmalik’s decision arose from separate civil forfeiture proceedings concerning funds allegedly connected to one of the corporate entities.
Significantly, investigations also revealed that the forfeiture proceedings were determined without the court taking oral evidence from witnesses, as such is usually not required in non-conviction-based forfeiture proceedings.
Court records seen by this writer indicate that although witnesses had been listed in the matter, none appeared before the court to testify or be cross-examined either by counsel or by the court before judgment was delivered.
Legal practitioners familiar with the proceedings maintained that the absence of viva voce evidence reflected the procedural nature of the forfeiture application, which they said differs substantially from a criminal trial where witnesses are called, examined and cross-examined before a determination is made.
They explained that the criminal proceedings before Justice Ogunbanjo involved a full trial in which witnesses testified and were subjected to cross-examination before the court eventually held that the prosecution had failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt.
According to the lawyers, public discussions following the recent forfeiture judgement have, in some instances, blurred the distinction between the two proceedings, creating the erroneous impression that the later decision nullified the earlier acquittal.
They maintained that, in law, a civil forfeiture order does not amount to a criminal conviction and cannot, by itself, overturn a subsisting judgement of acquittal delivered by a court of coordinate jurisdiction.
Sources close to the matter also argued that the recent judgement has been widely misconstrued, insisting that the proceedings were civil in nature and should not be interpreted as a fresh finding of criminal liability against the lawmaker.
They further contended that since the forfeiture proceedings principally concerned issues relating to one of the companies, the decision should not be construed as a criminal finding against Hon Mutu in his personal capacity as a serving member of the House of Representatives.
Investigations further revealed that Hon Mutu has directed his legal team to challenge the latest judgement before the Court of Appeal, where the legal issues arising from the separate proceedings are expected to be determined.
Until any appellate court rules otherwise, the judgement delivered by Justice F O G Ogunbanjo on 15 April 2026, discharging and acquitting Hon Nicholas Mutu Ebomo, Airworld Technologies Limited and Oyien Homes Limited on all 13 criminal counts remains a valid and subsisting decision of the Federal High Court. That is the position of the matter and the first acquittal judgment of Hon Mutu stands unless a court of superior jurisdiction rules otherwise.
