The Federal High Court in Abuja on Wednesday ordered the final forfeiture of multi-billion naira assets and investments linked to a convicted former acting Accountant-General of the Federation, Chukwunyere Nnabuoku, to the federal government.
The order followed a motion on notice filed by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) seeking confiscation of properties traced to proceeds of unlawful activities.
“The properties of the convict, established to have been purchased with the proceeds of crime, are hereby finally forfeited to the Federal Government,” Judge James Omotosho ordered in a ruling.
The same judge sentenced Mr Nnabuoku, on 23 March, to eight years in prison without an option of fine.
Aside from the Nwabuoku’s case, Mr Omotosho has handled several high-profile corruption, political and national security cases.
In November last year, he sentenced former leader of the proscribed Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), Nnamdi Kanu, to life imprisonment.
Earlier on Wednesday, he sentenced former Minister of Power, Sale Mamman, to 72 years in prison.
On 1 April, months after Nnabuoku was convicted and jailed, EFCC filed a forfeiture request against assets recovered from him.
Mr Omotosho ruled on Wednesday that the forfeiture application was meritorious.
He said forfeiture of proceeds of crime is a natural consequence of conviction in money laundering cases.
“In crimes such as money laundering, forfeiting the proceeds of crime is deemed to be a natural consequence of conviction,” the judge noted since a convict cannot retain benefits of unlawful conduct.
Mr Omotosho also explained that forfeiture is meant to ensure that a convict does not continue to benefit from illegal gains.
He stressed that the “convict will not be allowed to enjoy those properties” traced to proceeds of crime. He held that the assets had been established as products of unlawful activities.
On the argument that the matter was subject of appeal, the judge said the filing of a notice of appeal does not stop a forfeiture order.
He described forfeiture as part of the judgement process and “similar to sentencing” after conviction.
According to him, conviction is the trigger, not the appeal process. “Where a person has been convicted and a notice of appeal has been filed, would that preclude such person from being sentenced? The answer is no,” he said.
“Consequently, this forfeiture order will be granted regardless of the filing of a notice of appeal.”
On the allegation of abuse of court process, the judge held that no evidence was placed before the court to show any existing conflicting forfeiture order over the same assets. He therefore dismissed that objection.
The judge subsequently ordered forfeiture of the assets listed in Schedules 1, 2 and 3 of the EFCC’s application.
The forfeited assets comprise landed properties, cash held in bank accounts and company shares.