The Court of Appeal in Lagos has reinstated an interim forfeiture order secured by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) over 14 properties allegedly linked to former Kogi State Governor, Yahaya Bello.
The appellate court ruled that constitutional immunity does not protect assets suspected to be acquired through illegal means.
Justice Yargata Nimpar, delivering the lead judgment during a virtual session, ruled that the Federal High Court erred in law when it lifted the forfeiture order by relying on Section 308 of the 1999 Constitution.
That section protects sitting governors from criminal or civil prosecution but, according to Justice Nimpar, does not shield property suspected to be proceeds of crime.
Justices Danlami Senchi and Paul Bassi agreed with the ruling, which clears the path for the EFCC to pursue a final forfeiture hearing on the properties, which span locations in Lagos, Abuja, and even Dubai.
In February 2023, Justice Nicholas Oweibo of the Federal High Court in Lagos initially granted an interim forfeiture order following an application by EFCC counsel Rotimi Oyedepo (SAN).
The agency claimed the properties, including a luxury apartment in Dubai’s Burj Khalifa, were likely funded through unlawful means.
Justice Oweibo had also ordered the EFCC to publicize the forfeiture and allow any interested parties to contest the seizure.
Yahaya Bello, still serving as governor at the time, challenged the order, asserting that the assets were acquired before he assumed office.
He invoked Section 308 of the Constitution to argue that as a sitting governor, he could not be subjected to any legal action.
Bello’s lawyers further argued that the Proceeds of Crime Act, 2022, could not be retroactively applied to property acquired before its enactment.
A Kogi State High Court had already barred the EFCC from probing the state’s finances.
The Federal High Court in Lagos lacked jurisdiction since the properties were outside its territorial scope.
In April 2023, Justice Oweibo agreed with Bello and struck out the EFCC’s case, citing lack of jurisdiction and the constitutional immunity clause.
However, the EFCC appealed the decision, insisting that its mandate allowed it to trace and preserve suspected illicit assets, regardless of the owner’s current office.
The agency also claimed it had not been barred by any competent court from performing its duties.
The Court of Appeal agreed, ruling that while governors enjoy immunity from legal action, properties they allegedly acquired through criminal means do not enjoy the same protection.
The panel faulted the trial court’s decision to dismiss the case entirely, instead of allowing proceedings to determine the final forfeiture.
The judgment not only restores the EFCC’s temporary control over the 14 properties but also allows the anti-graft agency to pursue a final forfeiture verdict.
It also dismissed Bello’s objections to the process as “lacking merit.”
