The Federal High Court in Abuja has adjourned to 30 June the hearing of a suit filed by former Petroleum Minister, Diezani Alison-Madueke, challenging the forfeiture of her assets by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC).
At the resumed hearing on Friday, Alison-Madueke was represented by Mr Godwin Iyinbor from the chambers of Prof Mike Ozekhome, SAN. However, the EFCC had no legal representation in court.
Mr Iyinbor reminded the court, presided over by Justice Musa Umar, that Justice Inyang Ekwo who previously handled the case had ruled on the last adjourned date that any party causing further delays to the substantive hearing would incur costs.
Justice Umar, however, stated that as he was not the judge who issued that directive, the EFCC should be granted another opportunity to appear. He consequently ordered that fresh hearing notices be served and adjourned proceedings to 30 June.
The suit marked FHC/ABJ/CS/21/2023 was instituted in 2023. In it, Alison-Madueke seeks an extension of time to apply for an order setting aside the EFCC’s public notice regarding the sale of her assets.
Also Read: Alleged Fraud: Court Grants ₦20m Bail to Mercy Chinwo’s Ex-Manager
She argued that the forfeiture orders were granted without jurisdiction and that she was denied fair hearing in the proceedings that led to them. Among the five reliefs sought is the annulment of the EFCC’s public notice for the sale of her properties.
Alison-Madueke further claimed that the court orders obtained by the EFCC infringed upon her right to fair hearing, as guaranteed under Section 36(1) of the 1999 Constitution. She maintained she was never served with any charge sheet, proof of evidence, or court summons.
The former minister alleged that the court was misled into granting the forfeiture orders due to the EFCC’s failure to disclose material facts.
In response, the EFCC urged the court to dismiss her application, insisting that due process was followed. The agency stated that the final forfeiture order had been properly obtained in 2017 and had not been overturned on appeal. It added that the affected properties had already been disposed of in accordance with the court’s ruling.
