There was a minor drama at the Abuja High Court on
Friday as the seizure of former Bayelsa State governor, Timpre Silva’s
properties came up for mention.
The Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) and the former governor presented two conflicting but valid court orders before the judge, Justice M. M. Kolo.
On Thursday, the EFCC seized and sealed off 48 properties belonging to the former governor over his alleged complicity in a N6.46 billion scam. Most of buildings are situated in elitist districts of the federal capital, including Maitama, Wuse II, Dakibiu, among others.
The anti-graft commission took possession of the properties on Thursday, claiming that a Federal High Court sitting in Abuja, presided over by Justice A. R. Mohammed, on December 21 granted it order of temporary seizure; but Sylva on the other brandished an ex-parte order granted him by an Abuja High Court, presided over by Justice M. M. Kolo, on December 27 restraining the EFCC from seizing the properties.
When the matter came up on Friday before Justice Kolo, Sylva’s counsel, Benson Ibezim, told the court that both the EFCC and the Attorney-General of the Federation (AGF) had just served him their processes in court, and that he would need time to respond to them.
Counsel to the AGF, B. A. Saheed, on the other hand, told the court that he had filed a Preliminary Objection challenging the jurisdiction of the court to entertain the suit, while the counsel to the EFCC, O. O. Otemu, submitted that pending the response of the applicant, the court should allow for an oral argument on the jurisdiction.
This, he said, would save the judiciary from mockery because of the two conflicting orders. He also reminded the court that Justice A. R. Mohammed of a Federal High Court sitting in Abuja on December 21 granted the commission an order of seizure and that the order was yet to be vacated.
He argued that it amounted to an abuse of court process for the applicant to have approached the High Court during the pendency of a Federal High Court order.
But Sylva’s counsel, Ibezim, told the court that the Federal High Court order was not served on his client, hence the need to approach the court for a restraining order.
To this, Otemu (EFCC counsel) responded saying that the December 21 order was pasted on all the affected properties, and was also served on Sylva himself. He said further that the High Court should have been informed of the pending order before the ex-parte order was granted.
He, therefore, urged the court to vacate its December 27 order restraining the EFCC, as the properties in question had already been seized by the anti-graft agency.
Responding, the presiding judge, Justice Kolo, held that he could not vacate the order, and that the court was not aware of a pending order of the Federal High Court when it granted the ex-parte order.
Besides, Kolo told the counsel that he could no longer sit over the matter as he would be proceeding on vacation beginning from Saturday (today).
He therefore said he would transfer the case file back to the Chief Judge of the High Court to reassign it to another judge, with an order of accelerated hearing due to the nature of the case.
Saturday Tribune recalls that the anti-graft commission on Thursday took possession of a mansion at 3 River Niger Street, Plot 3192 Cadastral Zone AO, Maitama District Abuja; nine units (comprising six one-bedroom and three two-bedroom apartments) at 8 Sefadu Street Wuse Zone 2, Plot 262, Cadastral Zone AO2, Wuse Abuja; two units duplexes at 5 Oguta Street, Plot 906 Cadastral Zone Wuse 11 Abuja.
Others are a duplex at Plot 1271 Nike Street Cadastral Zone AO5, Maitama District Abuja; a duplex at Phase 1 Unit No. 1 (Villa 1) Palm Springs Gold Estate, Cachez Turkey Projects Limited, Mpape, Abuja; 10 units of one-room apartment at 8 Mistrata Street Plot 232 Cadastral Zone, Wuse 11 Abuja and five units duplexes at Plot No 1070 Dakibiyu District Cadastral Zone B10, Abuja, among others.
Sylva had denied the ownership of the properties, insisting also that that the Federal High Court did not grant EFCC order of temporary seizure but rather said that the anti-graft agency only put him on notice.
Hearing in the suit before the Federal High Court has been fixed for January 10.
The Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) and the former governor presented two conflicting but valid court orders before the judge, Justice M. M. Kolo.
On Thursday, the EFCC seized and sealed off 48 properties belonging to the former governor over his alleged complicity in a N6.46 billion scam. Most of buildings are situated in elitist districts of the federal capital, including Maitama, Wuse II, Dakibiu, among others.
The anti-graft commission took possession of the properties on Thursday, claiming that a Federal High Court sitting in Abuja, presided over by Justice A. R. Mohammed, on December 21 granted it order of temporary seizure; but Sylva on the other brandished an ex-parte order granted him by an Abuja High Court, presided over by Justice M. M. Kolo, on December 27 restraining the EFCC from seizing the properties.
When the matter came up on Friday before Justice Kolo, Sylva’s counsel, Benson Ibezim, told the court that both the EFCC and the Attorney-General of the Federation (AGF) had just served him their processes in court, and that he would need time to respond to them.
Counsel to the AGF, B. A. Saheed, on the other hand, told the court that he had filed a Preliminary Objection challenging the jurisdiction of the court to entertain the suit, while the counsel to the EFCC, O. O. Otemu, submitted that pending the response of the applicant, the court should allow for an oral argument on the jurisdiction.
This, he said, would save the judiciary from mockery because of the two conflicting orders. He also reminded the court that Justice A. R. Mohammed of a Federal High Court sitting in Abuja on December 21 granted the commission an order of seizure and that the order was yet to be vacated.
He argued that it amounted to an abuse of court process for the applicant to have approached the High Court during the pendency of a Federal High Court order.
But Sylva’s counsel, Ibezim, told the court that the Federal High Court order was not served on his client, hence the need to approach the court for a restraining order.
To this, Otemu (EFCC counsel) responded saying that the December 21 order was pasted on all the affected properties, and was also served on Sylva himself. He said further that the High Court should have been informed of the pending order before the ex-parte order was granted.
He, therefore, urged the court to vacate its December 27 order restraining the EFCC, as the properties in question had already been seized by the anti-graft agency.
Responding, the presiding judge, Justice Kolo, held that he could not vacate the order, and that the court was not aware of a pending order of the Federal High Court when it granted the ex-parte order.
Besides, Kolo told the counsel that he could no longer sit over the matter as he would be proceeding on vacation beginning from Saturday (today).
He therefore said he would transfer the case file back to the Chief Judge of the High Court to reassign it to another judge, with an order of accelerated hearing due to the nature of the case.
Saturday Tribune recalls that the anti-graft commission on Thursday took possession of a mansion at 3 River Niger Street, Plot 3192 Cadastral Zone AO, Maitama District Abuja; nine units (comprising six one-bedroom and three two-bedroom apartments) at 8 Sefadu Street Wuse Zone 2, Plot 262, Cadastral Zone AO2, Wuse Abuja; two units duplexes at 5 Oguta Street, Plot 906 Cadastral Zone Wuse 11 Abuja.
Others are a duplex at Plot 1271 Nike Street Cadastral Zone AO5, Maitama District Abuja; a duplex at Phase 1 Unit No. 1 (Villa 1) Palm Springs Gold Estate, Cachez Turkey Projects Limited, Mpape, Abuja; 10 units of one-room apartment at 8 Mistrata Street Plot 232 Cadastral Zone, Wuse 11 Abuja and five units duplexes at Plot No 1070 Dakibiyu District Cadastral Zone B10, Abuja, among others.
Sylva had denied the ownership of the properties, insisting also that that the Federal High Court did not grant EFCC order of temporary seizure but rather said that the anti-graft agency only put him on notice.
Hearing in the suit before the Federal High Court has been fixed for January 10.
No comments:
Post a Comment