The Federal High Court in Abuja has scheduled June 30, 2025, as the date to hear a suit filed by former Petroleum Minister, Diezani Alison-Madueke, contesting the forfeiture of her assets to the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC).
During the most recent proceedings, Alison-Madueke was represented by Mr. Godwin Iyinbor, from the legal chambers of Prof. Mike Ozekhome, SAN.
However, the EFCC was absent from the hearing, with no legal representation in court.
Iyinbor reminded the court that Justice Inyang Ekwo, who initially presided over the matter, had warned at the last sitting that “any party who prevented the definite hearing of the matter on the next adjourn date would pay cost.”
However, Justice Musa Umar, now handling the case, clarified that he did not make that ruling and decided to allow the EFCC another opportunity to be present.
He directed that hearing notices be reissued and subsequently adjourned the case to June 30 for hearing.
The case, registered as FHC/ABJ/CS/21/2023, began in 2023.
In her application, Alison-Madueke is seeking an extension of time to apply for an order setting aside the EFCC’s public notice for the sale of her seized properties.
She contended that the forfeiture orders were issued “without jurisdiction” and argued that her right to fair hearing had been violated in the legal proceedings that resulted in the asset seizure.
“She held that she was denied fair hearing in the proceedings that led to the forfeiture orders.”
Alison-Madueke is asking the court to grant five reliefs, including nullifying the EFCC’s public notice regarding the property sale.
She insists that the various forfeiture rulings breached her constitutional protections.
“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.”
She also claims she was never served with the charge sheet, proof of evidence, or summons related to the case and accuses the EFCC of manipulating the process.
“She claimed that the court had been misled into granting the forfeiture order due to the suppression or non-disclosure of critical information.”
In response, the EFCC has urged the court to dismiss her motion, maintaining that due process was followed.
“The anti-graft agency held that the application for final forfeiture of her assets had been properly instituted and conducted following all legal requirements.”
The EFCC also asserted that the properties in question had already been lawfully disposed of based on a 2017 court order, which remains valid and unchallenged.
“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.”
