The Federal High Court, Abuja has fixed June 30 to hear the suit filed by former Petroleum Minister, Diezani Alison-Madueke challenging the forfeiture of her assets by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission, (EFCC).
At the resumed hearing of the matter on Friday, Alison-Madueke was represented by Mr Godwin Iyinbor from the chambers of Prof. Mike Ozekhome, SAN, but the EFCC had no representation in court.
Inyinbor told the court presided over by Justice Musa Umar that Justice Inyang Ekwo, who handled the matter previously, had said on the last adjourned date that any party who prevented the definite hearing of the matter on the next adjourn date would pay cost.
Justice Umar, however, said that since he was not the one who made that pronouncement, the anti-graft agency should be given another opportunity to appear in court.
He ordered that hearing notices be issued and adjourned the matter until June 30 for hearing.
The News Agency of Nigeria, (NAN) reports that in the suit marked FHC/ABJ/CS/21/2023, which started in 2023, Alison-Madueke prayed the court to extend the time to apply for an order to set aside the EFCC’s public notice issued for the sale of her properties.
In her application, she argued that the orders for the forfeiture of her assets were made without jurisdiction.
She held that she was denied fair hearing in the proceedings that led to the forfeiture orders.
She sought five orders from the court, including the annulment of the EFCC’s public notice on the sale of her properties.
She contended that the various court orders issued in favour of the EFCC violated her constitutional right to fair hearing as enshrined in Section 36 (1) of the 1999 Constitution.
The embattled former minister said that she was never served with the charge sheet, proof of evidence or summons regarding the charge against her.
She claimed that the court had been misled into granting the forfeiture order due to the suppression or non-disclosure of critical information.
The EFCC, however, prayed the court to dismiss her application on the grounds that she had been properly brought before the court.
The anti-graft agency held that the application for final forfeiture of her assets had been properly instituted and conducted following all legal requirements.
It said that the properties had been duly disposed of following the court’s order, which had been made in 2017 and which had not been overturned on appeal.
