Taiwo is a Certified SEO Specialist and digital marketing expert with four years of experience in SEO strategy, keyword research, content optimization, and website analytics. Through data-driven SEO techniques, he has successfully increased organic traffic, improved search rankings, and enhanced brand visibility in many reputable news agencies.
The commission says the Southwark Crown Court proceedings concerned a separate criminal case and are not relevant to the asset-forfeiture dispute before the Federal High Court in Abuja.
The Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) has opposed former Minister of Petroleum Resources Diezani Alison-Madueke’s attempt to rely on her acquittal by a London court in an ongoing Nigerian case over assets she is seeking to recover.
In a further counter-affidavit filed before the Federal High Court in Abuja, the anti-graft agency asked Justice Inyang Ekwo to reject the former minister’s request to introduce the judgment of the Southwark Crown Court into the proceedings.
The EFCC argued that the UK judgment was unrelated to the substantive issues before the Nigerian court and should therefore not influence the determination of the case.
The dispute is part of a wider legal battle over assets connected to forfeiture proceedings involving the former minister.
Why The UK Judgment Is Being Challenged
Diezani was discharged and acquitted by Southwark Crown Court in London on June 17 in relation to criminal bribery allegations brought against her.
She subsequently sought to place evidence of the UK court’s decision before the Federal High Court in Abuja.
Her application relates to suit FHC/ABJ/CS/21/2023, in which she is challenging forfeiture proceedings involving assets she claims an interest in.
Justice Ekwo had earlier granted her application to present evidence relating to the London proceedings after her counsel, Godwin Iyinbor, described the acquittal as a fresh and material development.
The EFCC has now challenged that position.
EFCC Says Cases Are Separate
In its further counter-affidavit, the EFCC argued that the Southwark proceedings were criminal proceedings in the United Kingdom and were not proceedings before a Nigerian court.
The commission therefore maintained that the London case had no bearing on the substantive issues before Justice Ekwo.
The EFCC also disputed aspects of Diezani’s claims concerning the properties involved in the Nigerian proceedings.
It argued that nothing in the public sale notice established that the properties listed belonged to the former minister.
The commission further maintained that the relevant forfeiture order covered jewellery and did not extend to the other properties being referenced in the dispute.
On that basis, the EFCC asked the court to disregard the further or supplementary affidavit filed by Diezani’s legal team.
The commission argued that the document introduced matters that were immaterial to the questions the court is required to determine.
Hearing Adjourned To November
The latest arguments were raised when the matter came before Justice Ekwo on Tuesday.
Counsel for Diezani, Queen-Ubokutom Uwe, told the court that the case had been scheduled for the hearing of the EFCC’s preliminary objection and the originating motion.
She informed the court that her legal team had received a fresh process from the EFCC shortly before proceedings began.
According to Uwe, the new document was the commission’s further counter-affidavit responding to Diezani’s further and supplementary affidavit.
She also reminded the court of a pending application seeking to regularise the processes filed by her team.
EFCC counsel, Paul Mgbeoma, expressed surprise at the continued filing of processes by the former minister’s legal team.
He nevertheless told the court that he was ready to proceed.
Justice Ekwo subsequently adjourned the case until November 11 for hearing of the pending motions.
What The Court Must Decide
The latest development does not determine whether Diezani’s UK acquittal will ultimately be admitted or what weight it could carry in the Nigerian proceedings.
The immediate dispute is whether the London judgment is sufficiently relevant to the Nigerian asset case to justify its introduction into the proceedings.
The court must also consider the competing arguments over the properties and the scope of the forfeiture proceedings.
For Diezani, the UK acquittal forms part of her attempt to challenge the Nigerian asset proceedings.
For the EFCC, the London criminal case and the Nigerian asset dispute are separate matters that should be determined on their respective facts and legal issues.
Justice Ekwo’s November 11 hearing is therefore expected to provide the next substantive step in determining how the competing processes will proceed.
The government and university are linking housing delivery to affordability, finance, land reforms, infrastructure and climate-resilient construction.
The Federal Government...
