The Court of Appeal sitting in Lagos has affirmed the final forfeiture of several properties, cash and investments linked to retired Major General Emmanuel Jebe Atewe to the Federal Government.
In a unanimous judgment delivered virtually on Wednesday, July 22, 2026, the appellate court dismissed Atewe’s appeal against the May 5, 2023 decision of the Federal High Court in Lagos, holding that it lacked merit.
The panel, presided over by Justice Boloukuromo Ugo, resolved all three issues raised in the appeal in favour of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission and upheld the final forfeiture order made by Justice Chukwujekwu Aneke.
The assets include ₦3.97 million in cash, several parcels of land in Abuja and Bayelsa State, a 50-hectare farm and 30,000 shares in MTN held through Stanbic IBTC Asset Management Limited.
The forfeiture proceedings arose from the EFCC’s investigation into the alleged diversion of more than ₦8.5 billion belonging to the Nigerian Maritime Administration and Safety Agency through the Joint Task Force, Operation Pulo Shield, which Atewe previously commanded.
The commission alleged that funds released by NIMASA for security operations in the Niger Delta were channelled through companies and proxies before being used to acquire the assets.
Atewe challenged the forfeiture on several grounds, including the argument that the Federal High Court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the proceedings because he was subject to the Armed Forces Act.
He relied on Section 123 of the Armed Forces Act and the Court of Appeal’s decision in General Jafaru Muhammed v. EFCC, arguing that the provisions governing the investigation and prosecution of military personnel applied to his case.
The Court of Appeal rejected the argument, distinguishing Atewe’s circumstances from those considered in the Jafaru Muhammed case.
The appellate court held that while General Jafaru Muhammed was a serving military officer when the relevant proceedings were commenced, Atewe was already retired.
It noted that Atewe had expressly admitted his retired status in the affidavit he filed before the Federal High Court to explain why the assets should not be forfeited.
The court consequently held that Section 123 of the Armed Forces Act applied to serving military personnel and could not be invoked by Atewe to defeat the forfeiture proceedings.
The appellate court also rejected his contention that the proceedings were improperly directed against him without complying with the requirements applicable to the prosecution of military officers.
It held that the forfeiture action was a proceeding against the assets rather than a criminal prosecution against Atewe personally.
According to the court, proceedings of that nature are sui generis and are intended to determine whether identified assets are reasonably suspected to constitute proceeds of unlawful activities and whether the person claiming them can establish a legitimate source.
The court found that Atewe failed to provide a satisfactory explanation showing how he lawfully acquired the properties, cash and investments covered by the forfeiture order.
Atewe had attributed some of the funds used in acquiring the assets to honoraria allegedly received during his military career.
The appellate court, however, held that the explanation was insufficient because he did not provide particulars of the honoraria, identify those who made the payments or present records connecting the alleged earnings to the acquisition of the properties.
The court maintained that a general reference to unspecified honoraria could not adequately rebut the evidence and circumstances relied upon by the EFCC in seeking the forfeiture.
Atewe also argued that the EFCC’s decision to institute civil forfeiture proceedings while criminal charges arising from substantially the same transactions were pending amounted to an abuse of court process.