- Agency faults claim
The Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) yesterday faulted a claim by Senator Ike Ekweremadu that it was behind his ordeal.
The Senator claimed the commission provided information that resulted in him and his wife being denied bail by the United Kingdom (UK) authorities.
Ekweremadu’s son Lloyd claimed that his parents were being held in the UK based on information supplied by the EFCC, including a claim that they were being investigated.
He stated this in a motion seeking to set aside the November 4 order of interim forfeiture made against 40 properties linked to the Senator.
Lloyd claimed that the EFCC obtained the interim forfeiture order by fraud and by withholding vital facts from the court.
He said the commission knew that his parents, who are being held in the UK, would be unable to take necessary steps within the 14 days required by law to challenge the order.
But, in its counter affidavit, the EFCC argued that the allegations made against it by Lloyd showed he was not conversant with the proceedings in the criminal prosecution against his parents in the London court, which was why he thought it (the EFCC) “has a hand in the predicament and travails of his parents.”
The EFCC said its July 18 letter to the Crown Prosecution Service (UK) in response to a July 17 letter “was a mere routine to a counterpart government agency in accordance with the global best practice of information sharing with other law enforcement and other agencies in the USA and U.K”.
The commission added: “The response of the respondent to the Crown Prosecution Service was never an instigation or encouragement to the Crown Prosecution Service to detain Senator Ekweremadu or anyone else.
“The respondent (EFCC) was neither linked to, or had any interest in the subject of investigation in the U.K., namely trafficking a person with a view to exploitation, that is, organ harvesting.
“Both the Metropolitan Police and Crown Prosecution Service in the U.K. are independent agencies with wide discretion to carry out their duties/responsibilities and cannot be influenced by anyone, including the respondent.
”The respondent, being a foremost premiere and flagship law enforcement agency, does share information and intelligence with other law enforcement agencies worldwide, including the Metropolitan Police of the U.K., FBI of the United States, KGB of Russia and other renowned law enforcement agencies.
“As such, the innuendoes, insinuations speculations and presumptions manifest in the aforementioned paragraphs of Lloyd Ekweremadu’s affidavit are unfounded and unkind to the respondent.”
The EFCC, which claimed to have been investigating Ekweremadu for money laundering, argued that it was at liberty to initiate forfeiture proceedings or criminal charges against a suspect at any time.
It added: “The filing of the instant forfeiture proceedings was a mere coincidence with the arrest of Senator Ekweremadu and his wife, Beatrice N. Ekweremadu in the U.K.
“The respondent has done substantial investigation warranting the steps it took in the instant application for the forfeiture of the properties reasonably suspected to have been acquired with proceeds of crime.”
Faulting the motion filed by Lloyd, said to be a director in one of the companies linked with his father (Power Properties Nigeria Ltd), the EFCC argued that he ought to file an affidavit to show cause why a final order of forfeiture should not be made on the properties linked to his parents.
It added: “Already, some persons who claim an interest in some of the properties have filed affidavits to show cause.
“The ownership of some of the properties is vested in companies such as Power Properties Nigeria Limited and Ikeoha Foundation which are entities distinct from Senator Ike Ekweremadu.
“The applicant (Lloyd) who is a shareholder in Power Properties Nigeria Limited can show cause if at all there is reason to show cause, why the properties should not be finally forfeited to the Federal Government of Nigeria.
“Contrary to the depositions of the applicant alleging bad faith and non-disclosure of facts concerning the arrest and detention of Senator Ekweremadu in the U.K, forfeiture proceedings are basically an action in rem, not an action in person.
“It is for persons interested to come forth and show cause, as such, there was neither bad faith employed by the respondent nor non-disclosure of material facts as alleged.
“The applicant herein has failed to file an affidavit to show cause as required by law.
“The procedure under Section 17 of the Advance Fee Fraud and Other Fraud Related Offences Act, 2006 does not admit of an application to set aside the interim forfeiture order without filing an affidavit to show cause.
“The applicant’s application as constituted is grossly incompetent and liable to be dismissed.
“Some interested persons have filed an affidavit to show cause why final forfeiture order should not be made.
“It will not serve the interest of justice to set aside the interim order of forfeiture issued by this court on 4/11 2022, which is meant to preserve the assets/properties pending the determination of the application for a final order.
“Doing so would adversely affect the respondent and the persons interested, who have duly taken steps as required by law.”
Yesterday, Ekweremadu’s lawyer, Adegboyega Awomolo (SAN), prayed the court to grant the reliefs sought by his client and set aside the interim forfeiture order.
But, EFCC’s lawyer, Sylvanus Tahir (SAN), prayed the court to reject the motion since the case was not directed at Ekweremadu, but at the property, to which some individuals and organisations were already laying claim.
Justice Inyang Ekwo adjourned till January 25 for a ruling.
