Justice Mojisola Olatoregun of the
Federal High Court sitting in Ikoyi, Lagos, has fixed February 11, 2019 to
deliver judgment in an application for final forfeiture filed by the Economic
and Financial Crimes Commission, EFCC, of the sums of $8,435,788.84 (about N3
billion) and N9.2 billion (totalling about N12.2 billion), linked to Patience Jonathan,
wife of former president, Goodluck Jonathan, and believed to be proceeds of
illegal activities.
The court had, on April 19, 2018,
ordered an interim forfeiture of the money, following an ex-parte application
filed by the EFCC against Patience and some companies.
The companies named in the suit
marked FHC/L/CS/620/18 are: Globus Integrated Service Limited, Finchley Top
Homes Limited, AM-PM Global Network Limited, Pagmat Oil and Gas Limited and
Magel Resort Limited.
The money was said to be warehoused
in some banks, including Skye Bank Plc (now Polaris Bank Plc), Diamond Bank
Plc, Stabic-IBTC and First Bank Plc.
At the last adjourned sitting on
Tuesday, January 15, 2019, five video clips of companies belonging to the
former First Lady were shown to the court.
After viewing the videos, counsel to
the applicant, Rotimi Oyedepo, informed the court that he was not served the
video of the Women for Change Initiative and two others by the defence, a claim
that was confirmed by the court.
During yesterday’s proceedings,
Oyedepo was served some applications pertaining to the video evidence played in
the court.
At the resumed sitting today,
January 16, 2019, counsel to the first respondent, Mike Ozekhome, SAN, told the
court about the response of the counsel to the applicant and urged the court to
expunge paragraphs nine to 12 of his response.
Other counsels aligned with the
submission of the counsel to the first respondent.
In his response to the application
served on him at yesterday’s sitting by the respondents, Oyedepo informed the
court that a sum of about N1billion that the Women for Change Initiative paid
into the account of the fifth respondent, Pagmat Oil and Gas Limited, was
inaccurate.
He said investigations showed that
tax was not paid to the Federal Inland Revenue Service, FIRS.
“If it was an income as stated by
the respondent, tax would have been paid,” he said.
He also told the court that first
respondent controlled the accounts of the third to the sixth respondents, as
she was the sole signatory to all the accounts.
He, therefore, urged the court not
to strike out paragraphs nine to 12 of his further response affidavit.
In her short ruling, Justice
Olatoregun allowed the further affidavit filed by the applicant, stating that
she had found no reason why those paragraphs should be expunged.
In
his further response to the counter-affidavits filed by the respondents to his
motion for final forfeiture of the monies, he told the court that the first
respondent breached the trust of the Constitution establishing the Women for
Change Initiative that says “a fund should not be transferred to any of the
members that has interest in the company”.
He said the money transferred to the
fifth respondent was a breach of trust, adding that “there was no evidence of petroleum
products being supplied.”
He tendered cheques issued by the
first respondent to the tune of N500m from the Women Initiative account to the
fifth respondent’s account, to which she is the only signatory.
Oyedepo further stated that it was
an unlawful act to induce men and women to make donations only to end up
converting same to personal use.
“My lord, the first respondent never
disclosed any of the sources that made the donations.
“Instead, she signed the cheques,
using other people’s names and passport photographs for various transactions
and conversions of funds.
“The two men who are signatories to
the second respondent’s account are at large.
“The funds traced to the accounts are
all cash payments in dollars given to a steward in the State House to pay into
the accounts, using fictitious names,” he further submitted.
He also brought to the notice of the
court that after the court had earlier struck out the initial application to
forfeit these funds, the third to the sixth respondents issued instructions to
the various banks where the money was to be forfeited, informing them to
transfer the money to different banks.
He told the court that the receipt
brought by the respondent was an attempt to “pull wool over the court’s eye.
There was no name, address, phone number on the receipt of the money paid into
the accounts of the third to the sixth respondents.
“Some of the people who deposited
the money had written to the EFCC that they did not buy anything, but that they
were given dollars, which they changed and converted to Naira and paid into
those accounts.”
He, therefore, passionately urged
the court to forfeit the funds and to place reliance on all the EFCC exhibits
before the court.
“My lord, the respondents have not
shown cause that the funds are legitimate,” he submitted.
No comments:
Post a Comment