Forfeited N12.2bn: Patience Jonathan heads to Appeal Court
Peter Fowoyo
Twenty – four hours after a Federal High Court, Ikoyi, Lagos ordered the wife of the former President Goodluck Jonathan, Dame Patience, to forfeit about N12.2 billion to the Federal Government, the erstwhile First Lady on Tuesday headed to the Lagos division of the Court of Appeal to challenge the decision of the lower court.
Justice Mojisola Olatoregun had on Monday ordered the final forfeiture of a sum to the tune of N12.2 billion to the Federal Government, belonging to her.
Specifically, the former first lady and four other firms are asking the appellate court to set aside the judgment of Justice Olatoregun.
Mrs. Jonathan particularly insisted through her lawyer that the judge erred in law by ordering the final forfeiture when she had no jurisdiction to do so.
Justice Olatoregun had on Monday ruled on an application by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission, EFCC, requesting for an order of forfeiture of $8.4million (about N3.030 billion) and N9.2 billion found in her companies’ accounts.
The judge had equally declared that the funds were proceeds of unlawful activities.
The judge held that the evidence given by the respondents’ witnesses failed to dispel EFCC’s suspicion that the funds were proceeds of crime.
Dissatisfied with the verdict, the appellants through their lawyer, Mike Ozekhome, SAN, lodged an appeal citing miscarriage of justice.
The appellants formulated six grounds of appeal to challenge the entire judgment of the lower court.
They argued in one of the grounds that the trial judge erred in law when she assumed jurisdiction to hear the motion for final forfeiture filed by the EFCC despite clear abuse of Judicial process by the anti graft agency.
They queried the rationale behind the lower court’s judgement amidst their filing of a preliminary objection challenging the court’s jurisdiction to grant the interim forfeiture in the first place owing to the pendency of different suits which touches on same subject matter via suits marked: FHC/ABJ/CS/1207/18; FHC/ABJ/CS/821/17 and FHC/L/CS/1342.
They are consequently insisting that the lower court lacks jurisdiction to entertain the motion for final forfeiture where its judicial process have been abused.
In another ground, the appellants argued that the lower court erred in law when she relied on the speculative depositions of the EFCC against the clear evidence of the acquisition of their income and prove of same.
They also argued that the trial judge erred in law and thus occasioned a miscarriage of justice in ordering a final forfeiture of their funds by shifting the onus on them to prove not only the sources of their funds, but their innocence.
