The Abuja Division of the Federal High Court on Wednesday fixed July 2 for a ruling on the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission’s motion seeking final forfeiture of five additional property linked to convicted a former Minister of Power, Saleh Mamman, to the federal government.
Justice James Omotosho fixed the date after EFCC lawyer, Abbas Muhammed, and Mr Mamman’s counsel, Femi Atteh, SAN, adopted their processes and presented their arguments for and against the motion.
The property are Walijam Apartments, located at No. 43, Plot 435 Lobito Crescent, Wuse 2, Abuja; and Bloom Luxury Suites Nigeria Limited, Located at No. 5, Amana Crescent, New Estate Unguwan Rimi, Kaduna State.
Others are a mansion located at No. 11, Misratah Street, Wuse 2, Abuja; another mansion on No. 13, Misratah Street, Wuse 2, Abuja; and A.U.A. Plaza, situated on Plot 734, Kade Street, Wuse 2, Abuja.
When the case was called, Mr Atteh, who appeared for the ex-minister, sought the permission of the court to address the issue of the affidavit of facts leading to the judgement filed on May 22 by one of the lawyers in his chamber.
The senior lawyer said though he was not around when the application was filed, he apologised to the court on behalf of the junior counsel.
“I want to apologise for this and I want your lordship to grant a pardon to us. I am the leader of the team and I will want my lord to permit me to move an application for its withdrawal so that it can be struck out,” he prayed.
The prosecution lawyer, Mr Muhammed, did not oppose the application.
Mr Omotosho said though he doubted if Mr Atteh was aware of the drafting of the affidavit when it was filed, the judge directed the lawyer, Mohammed Ahmed, to address him.
“Give him the phone; let me hear him if he is sober,” the judge said.
But Mr Atteh said Mr Ahmed was not in court.
The lawyer, who said Mr Ahmed’s absence was not out of disobedience to order of court, said he was absent because he was indisposed.
“I am sorry, my lord,” he said.
The judge, thereafter, struck out the affidavit of facts, having been withdrawn.
Mr Muhammed then informed the court that he had an application seeking an order for final forfeiture of five property of the former minister.
He said the motion on notice was filed on May 25 and that the defence had been served.
Mr Atteh acknowledged the receipt of the application. He said a counter-affidavit had also been filed.
“Are you ready to move it?” the judge asked.
Responding, Mr Atteh informed the court that he had “a strange application” to make.
He stated, “We raised the issue of the status of court in relation to this application.”
He said counsel had the responsibility not to put the court in a state of confusion.
“My opinion is that what they (EFCC) seek to achieve after judgement and conviction can only be done if they file another case,” he said.
He said the court is “functus officio” to hear the motion for the final forfeiture of the property.
But Mr Muhammed disagreed with Mr Atteh’s submission.
He maintained that though the court had delivered judgement, convicted and sentenced Mr Mamman, “the court is not functus officio to proceed on this application, my lord.”
He said in the judgement, the court found that the convict siphoned N22 billion against the N33.8 billion charge allegedly preferred against the ex-minister.
The lawyer, however, said that out of the N22 billion, the anti-graft agency only recovered less than N2 billion after the earlier forfeiture.
“So this honourable court has the power,” he said.
He said he understood that a notice of appeal had been filed. Mr Muhammed argued that the appeal had not been entered and there was no appeal number.
“Therefore, it is our position that this court has jurisdiction to entertain our application,” he said.
Moving the motion, Mr Muhammed said the application was dated and filed on May 25.
He said it sought a consequential order forfeiting the properties attached to the schedule of the application to the federal government.
“We adopt all our processes in urging my lord to finally forfeit the properties to the federal government,” he said.
Mr Atteh said in opposition, the defence filed a counter-affidavit on June 5 with exhibits attached.
The senior lawyer prayed the court to consider their application and dismiss the EFCC’s motion for lacking merit.
He said, from the affidavit, some of the property belonged to parties that were not before the judge during the trial.
“The question is, are these parties being given a fair hearing?” he asked.
Citing a previous case to back his argument, Mr Atteh submitted that the function of the court was already complete.
“For the reasons we have stated in our address, we urge your lordship to discountenance the application as not being meritorious,” he said.
After listening to the parties, the judge adjourned the matter until July 2 for ruling.
(NAN)
