14042019 - 144 Killed in nine days

PAGE 24– SUNDAY VANGUARD, APRIL 14, 2019
(emmaamaize@yahoo.co.uk)
Calm after storm over
billions traced to
Patience Jonathan
By Emma Amaize,
Regional Editor, South-South
FORMER First Lady, Dame Patience
Jonathan, has been in the news
since her husband and former
President, Dr. Goodluck Jonathan,
left office in 2015 over alleged
billions of Naira traced to her by the anti-graft
agency, Economic and Financial Crimes
Commission, EFCC.
Some weeks ago, the Supreme Court
affirmed an order of the Lagos Division of the
Federal High Court for the interim forfeiture
of N2.4bn allegedly traced to her.
Before that, the apex court sanctioned a
similar order of interim forfeiture of $8.4m
belonging to the ex-First Lady.
The court had ordered, before the forfeiture
judgment, her return to the Federal High
Court in Lagos to show reason why she would
not give up the fund permanently to the
Federal Government.
EFCC allegedly traced $8,435,788.84 and
over N7.35bn reportedly found in 15 bank
accounts to Mrs. Jonathan.
The anti-graft agency claimed its
investigations revealed that the $8,435,788.84
and over N7.35bn emanated from the coffers
of Bayelsa State. It obtained an interim order
to deprive her of the funds on May 8, 2018
Recently, in a separate appeal, a five-man
panel of the apex court unanimously handed
down a related verdict affirming an interim
forfeiture of N2,421,953,522 in the bank
account of Lawari Furniture and Bath Limited,
a firm which EFCC had linked to Mrs.
Jonathan.
The anti-graft agency claimed the various
funds were proceeds of unlawful activities.
Lawari Furniture and Bath Limited, through
its lawyers, Chief Mike Ozekhome , SAN,
had filed an appeal at the Supreme Court
challenging a January 12, 2018 judgment of
the Court of Appeal in Lagos, which validated
the interim forfeiture order made on April 26,
2017 by the Federal High Court in Lagos in
respect of the N2.4bn.
EFCC’s lawyer, Mr. Rotimi Oyedepo, had
opposed the appeal at the hearing before the
Supreme Court.
Justice Amiru
Sanusi, a member
of the Justice Tanko
Muhammad-led
panel, held, in the
lead judgment, that
there was no
justification to
“interfere with the
concurrent findings
of the two lower
courts.”
The lead
judgment, read by
Justice Sidi Bage
on behalf of Justice
Sanusi, who was
absent, stated that
the apex court
would only
interfere with
concurrent
decisions of the
lower courts only
when “there is a
s p e c i a l
circumstance
where the decision
is perverse or there
is misapplication of
law or the facts”.
Arguing her appeal on
December 12, 2018, her
lead lawyer, Mr. Ifedayo
Adedipe (SAN), urged
the Supreme Court to
quash Section 17 of
AFF Act, which he
contended negated the
principles of fair
hearing and
presumption of
innocence prescribed
by the Constitution
He added, “I have seen none of these in this
appeal. I find no merit in this appeal and it is
accordingly dismissed.”
The court also rejected Mrs. Jonathan’s
prayer to strike down the provisions of Section
17 of the Advanced Fee Fraud Act and other
Fraud Related Offences Act, which the Federal
High Court relied on to issue the order of
•Mrs Jonathan
interim forfeiture.
In his concurring opinion, Justice Ejembi
Eko, a member of the apex court’s panel, noted
that splitting of the appeal from the one ruled
upon the week earlier was unnecessary.
EFCC celebrates
Earlier, when the Supreme Court affirmed
the forfeiture of Mrs. Jonathan’s $8.4 m on
March 8, the EFCC expectedly went on
celebration. In a report on its website, same
day, the anti-graft agency said, “The five-man
bench of the apex court, led by Justice Dattijo
Muhammad, in a unanimous judgment,
dismissed the ex-First Lady’s appeal and
directed her to return to the Federal High
Court to show cause why the $8.4million
should not be permanently forfeited to the
Federal Government.”
The Supreme Court also rejected Mrs
Jonathan’s prayer to strike down the
provisions of Section 17 of the
Advanced Fee Fraud Act and
other Fraud related offences
Act, which the Federal High
Court relied on to issue the
order of interim forfeiture.
Affirming the decision of the
Court of Appeal in Lagos,
which had earlier upheld the
Federal High Court’s interim
order, Justice Kumai Aka’ahs,
in the lead judgment of the
apex court, held, “I do not find
any reason to interfere with the
decision of the lower court”.
Aka’ahs added, “Appellant
is to go back to the trial court
(the Federal High Court) to
show cause why the interim
order should not be made
permanent.”
Justice Ejembi Eko, a
member of the panel, read the
lead judgment on behalf of
Aka’ahs.
Other members of the fiveman
panel are Justices
Muhammad, John Okoro and
Sidi Bage. They all concurred
with Aka’ah’s lead judgment.
The EFCC had, last year,
approached the Federal High
Court in Lagos with an ex parte application,
seeking the forfeiture of $8,435,788.84 and
other various sums in various bank accounts
linked to the wife of the former President.
The commission had, in its application,
anchored on Section 17 of AFF Act and urged
the court to grant an order of interim forfeiture
of the funds which, it said, were suspected to
be proceeds of unlawful activities.
Mrs. Jonathan and some organizations
were joined, in the said ex parte application,
as respondents. Justice Mojisola Olatoregun
of the Federal High Court in Lagos had, on
April 20, last year, granted the ex parte order.
The judge also ordered the EFCC to publish
the court’s order in any major national
newspaper to enable the respondents or
anyone interested in the funds to appear
before the court to show cause within 14 days
why the final order of forfeiture of the said
funds should not be made in favour of the
Federal Government.
Instead of appearing before the court to
show reason why she should not forfeit the
money as directed by the court, however, Mrs
Jonathan filed an appeal before the Court of
Appeal to challenge the competence of the
application.
She also, in the appeal, challenged the
validity of the order made by the trial court
and the constitutionality of Section 17 of AFF
Act. The Court of Appeal dismissed appeal,
prompting her to approach the Supreme
Court.
Arguing her appeal on December 12, 2018,
her lead lawyer, Mr. Ifedayo Adedipe (SAN),
urged the Supreme Court to quash Section
17 of AFF Act, which he contended negated
the principles of fair hearing and presumption
of innocence prescribed by the Constitution.
He said that Section 17 of the AFF Act,
which allowed assets’ seizure from an
individual without conviction, a hearing or a
criminal charge, whether temporarily or
permanently, was unconstitutional. The
counsel also said the ex parte application,
which the trial court granted, failed to disclose
the alleged “unlawful activities” linked to the
funds.
However, in his response, the EFCC’s
lawyer, Mr. Rotimi Oyedepo, said the
appellant misconceived the provision of
Section 17 of the AFF Act in her appeal.
He added that there was no illegality about
the provision that provides opportunity to hear
affected person on temporarily forfeited assets.
The Supreme Court consequently
dismissed Mrs. Jonathan’s appeal and upheld
the decisions of the Federal High Court and
the Court of Appeal.
Another N1.4bn seized
In January, EFCC also secured an interim
forfeiture of N1.4 billion found in the accounts
said to belong to the former First Lady in a
commercial bank.
Two major lodgements were alleged to have
been made in the bank accounts on May 20
and 25, 2015, days before the end of the
Jonathan administration.
The forfeiture order was handed down by a
Kano Federal High Court presided over by
Justice A. Lewis-Allagoa consequent upon a
motion ex-parte filed by the EFCC seeking
the interim seizure of the money, which was
found in the account of a company known as
Magel Resort Limited, traced to Mrs
Jonathan.
The commission told the court that it got an
intelligence that a bank account domiciled in
the said commercial bank had a huge sum of
money unused by anybody. Upon receipt of
the intelligence, the EFCC swung into action
by conducting preliminary investigation,
which revealed that the former First Lady and
some relatives of her husband were directors
of the company which owned the accounts.
According to court documents, those named
as Directors of the firm are Oba Oba
Tamunotonye, Goodluck Jonathan Aruera,
Goodluck Jonathan Ariwabai and Esther
Fynface.
The agency said that in trying to trace the
origin of the money, it discovered that Fynface,
alleged to be in charge of the company,
deposited N500, 000 on May 20, 2015 while
N1 billion was transferred in two tranches on
May 25 from PAGMAT OIL AND GAS
NIGERIA LIMITED, a company not
registered with the Corporate Affairs
Commission.
Ruling on the motion, Justice A. Lewis-
Allagoa held, “An interim forfeiture order is
granted to the Federal Government in the sum
of N1.4 billion in the bank account of the 1st
respondent Magel Resort Limited 4011019546
which is maintained with 2nd respondent
Fidelity Bank Plc.
Mrs Jonathan also faced prosecution over
the N2bn hotel allegedly belonging to her in
Bayelsa. She inaugurated the hotel, known
as Aridolf Resort Wellness and Spa, Yenagoa,
in April 2015, barely a month before the end
of her husband’s tenure. EFCC obtained an
order to seize the hotel.
In July 2017, the former First Lady alleged
harassment of her family by security agencies
and sought the House of Representatives
intervention. In a petition to the green
chamber, she urged the Federal Government
to call the agencies to order.
The lawmaker representing Okrika
Constituency of Rivers, Rep. Bright Tamuno,
presented the petition at the House’s plenary.
Tamuno urged the House to wade into the
matter in consideration of the sacrifices her
husband, former President Jonathan, made
for the country.
According to him, no former First Lady had
been harassed like this before, and, in view
of the sacrifices that her husband had made
for the country, the House should consider and
call the security agencies to order.
In the petition, the ex-First Lady alleged
that EFCC and National Drug Law
Enforcement Agency and other agencies of
the Federal Government orchestrated her
harassment.
Groups in dilemma
Meanwhile, in January 2018, the Niger
Delta ex-Agitators Forum warned EFCC
against what it described as the persecution
of Mrs Jonathan. Addressing journalists in
Port Harcourt, Rivers State, the President of
the body, Prince Hornby, said the
“persecution” of Mrs. Jonathan was a ploy to
ridicule the people of the oil-rich region.
Hornby warned that ex-militants would
react in a manner that would not be in the
interest of the nation if the alleged persecution
of the former First Lady continued. He said,
“Non-governmental organizations are for the
empowerment of the people. How many First
Ladies of Nigeria did not have NGOs while
in office? How many of them do not own
properties?
“Why should Dame Jonathan be the target
for harassment and public ridicule? Her
NGO’s office complex was demolished
without following due process. This is capable
of igniting tension in the Niger Delta.
“We shall no longer tolerate this vindictive
fight against our daughter and mother and
her family. President Muhammadu Buhari
should caution the EFCC Chairman, Ibrahim
Magu, immediately”.
Like the ex-agitators, prominent leaders of
the Niger Delta region, including Chief Edwin
Clark, faulted the Buhari administration for
what they described as the attempt to
humiliate the family of the former President,
also in January 2017.
The leaders’ position was contained in a
communiqué issued at the end of a meeting
organised by the Pan Niger Delta Forum,
PANDEF, at the residence of Clark in
Kiagbodo, Burutu local government area of
Delta State.
Clark and the current National Chairman
of PANDEF, Air Commodore Idongesit
Nkanga (ret.), signed the communiqué, but
with the latest discoveries of overwhelming
figures and avalanche of court orders on the
forfeiture, the regional group and others
appear incapacitated in coming to her rescue.