EFCC fails bid to freeze Dame’s properties

Andrew Orolua, Abuja

The Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) on Thursday failed to convince the Federal High Court in Abuja to hear its exparte motion seeking an order to freeze Plot No 1785 Cadastral Zone Ado Central Business District, Abuja, belonging to former first lady, Dame Patience Jonathan.

Justice Nnamdi Dimgba of the Federal High Court Abuja could not hear the application yesterday following heated arguments between Dame Jonathan’s lawyer, Chief Mike Ozekhome (SAN), who brought an application challenging the jurisdiction of the court to entertain the exparte motion and EFCC’s lawyer, Sylvanus Tahir, who wanted to move the exparte application.

Tahir who announced appearance in the matter midway after Mrs. Best Ojukwu had announced appearance as EFCC counsel, urged the court to hear the commission motion because in the face of the application, it is an exparte.

He said that the motion exparte is seeking an order of the court to freezing property located at plot No 1758 Cadastral Zone Ado Central Business District, Abuja which the alleged is a proceed of crime.

He said that Dame Jonathan is a stranger to the exparte motion, and therefore she cannot challenge the motion. He urged the court to allow him to move the motion and grant the order freezing the property. He said it is only then, that Dame Jonathan could ask for a revocation of the order.

But Patience Jonathan’s lawyer, Ozekhome (SAN) who was also allowed to address the court by Jonathan lead lawyer, Ifedayo Adedipe (SAN), said that their application is challenging the court jurisdiction and that there are circumstances where an exparte application can be opposed like the instant case.

He said that the EFCC motion is an example where an exparte application can be challenged because it is an abuse of court process.

He said the commission want to overreach the fundamental human rights suit pending before this court in suit No /FHC/CS/586/2017 filed by Ariwabai Aruewa Reachout Foundation filed by the owner of the property the commission seeks to freeze.

The counsel urged the court to hear his application challenging the court jurisdiction first and the court will find that the exparte motion is an abuse of court process.

In his ruling Justice Dimgba said that ex parte applications are heard without the other party and that is the general principle.

He noted that there was no counter affidavit challenging the motion on jurisdiction. He also observed that issue of abuse of court process has been raised. Therefore, for the singular reason that the court must protect its integrity, the court have to conduct inquiry. He said that the only way to conduct that inquiry is to hear both applications together.

He, therefore, adjourned the matter to November 11.