Diezani Alison-Madueke Seeks Court Intervention to Reclaim Seized Assets Former Minister of Petroleum, Diezani Alison-Madueke, has filed a legal challenge against the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC), urging the Federal High Court in Abuja to direct the retrieval of her seized properties from their current owners. The embattled former minister, through her legal counsel, Chief Mike Ozekhome (SAN), is seeking an order to nullify the EFCC’s public auction of her assets, arguing that the sale was conducted in violation of legal provisions and her constitutional rights. Key Legal Arguments Against EFCC’s Asset Sale In her amended application submitted before Justice Inyang Ekwo, Alison-Madueke contends that: ✅ The public auction violated statutory provisions, including the EFCC Act of 2004 and the Proceeds of Crime Recovery and Management Act of 2022.✅ The forfeiture orders were obtained without due process, infringing on her right to a fair hearing under Section 36(1) of the 1999 Constitution (as amended).✅ The EFCC should be barred from further disposal of her properties, and the court should reverse its prior public notice enabling the sale.✅ The court should grant an extension of time for her to formally challenge the forfeiture orders and seek their reversal. EFCC’s Defense: Due Process Was Followed In response, the EFCC filed a counter-affidavit on March 14, urging the court to dismiss Alison-Madueke’s suit. According to litigation officer Oyakhilome Ekienabor, the forfeiture orders issued on July 9 and September 10, 2019, were: ✔️ Legally binding and obtained through due process.✔️ Not in violation of her right to fair hearing, as proper notice was given.✔️ A result of extensive investigations into her tenure as Minister of Petroleum. Ekienabor further stated that prior to the asset sales, the Federal High Court had ordered the EFCC to publish a public notice, inviting any interested parties to contest the forfeiture. He noted that Alison-Madueke was represented in at least one proceeding, where the court reviewed submissions from her legal team before granting final forfeiture orders. Background: The Case Against Diezani Alison-Madueke Alison-Madueke, who served as Nigeria’s Minister of Petroleum Resources from 2010 to 2015, has been at the center of multiple investigations related to corruption and financial misconduct. The EFCC has accused her of embezzling billions of dollars from Nigeria’s oil sector, leading to: What’s Next? Legal Battles Continue With both parties maintaining strong legal positions, Justice Inyang Ekwo is expected to deliver a ruling on the matter in the coming weeks. If Alison-Madueke succeeds, the EFCC may be forced to reclaim and return the auctioned assets, setting a precedent for future forfeiture cases. : EFCC Official Website READ ALSO: Follow the LMSINT MEDIA channel on WhatsApp: Join Our WhatsApp Group Hear: Chat on WhatsApp Join our Telegram Channel
Mazi Nnamdi Kanu, leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), has raised concerns over what he describes as a systematic legal maneuver by the Nigerian government to keep him in indefinite detention. Kanu, who has been in custody since his extraordinary rendition in 2021, detailed these claims in an open letter to Nigerians, highlighting what he calls executive and judicial misconduct. Judicial Rulings Ignored Kanu recalled a significant ruling from the Federal High Court, Abuja, on March 1, 2017, which declared that IPOB was not an unlawful group. Despite this, the Nigerian government, instead of appealing the ruling through legal channels, took an ex parte decision to designate IPOB as a terrorist organization. This, he argues, was orchestrated behind closed doors without his or IPOB’s representation, violating due process. Extraordinary Rendition and Rights Violations In October 2022, a Federal High Court ruled that Kanu’s extraordinary rendition from Kenya and subsequent detention were unconstitutional. The court found that his treatment in detention amounted to inhumane and degrading conditions, violating his fundamental rights under Section 34(1)(a) of Nigeria’s 1999 Constitution. The ruling mandated the federal government to apologize and compensate him. However, instead of adhering to the court’s directives, the government continued to defy the ruling, keeping Kanu detained. Court of Appeal’s Verdict and Government Resistance A landmark judgment from the Court of Appeal on October 13, 2022, emphasized that executive actions should not override the judiciary’s independence. The ruling explicitly stated that Kanu’s forced rendition violated both international and domestic laws, thereby stripping Nigerian courts of the jurisdiction to prosecute him. Despite the clarity of this judgment, the government, instead of complying, allegedly influenced a panel of justices to overturn the decision by issuing a stay of execution—an act Kanu considers fraudulent. He questioned the logic of staying a judgment that the government had already ignored, pointing out that the Supreme Court has repeatedly held that judicial relief cannot be granted to parties who disobey court orders. Supreme Court’s Decision and Continued Legal Battle On December 15, 2023, the Supreme Court referred Kanu’s case back to the Federal High Court, prolonging the legal struggle. This move, according to Kanu, is part of a broader strategy to keep him detained indefinitely without fair legal redress. Implications of Kanu’s Prolonged Detention Kanu’s continued detention has sparked concerns over the government’s commitment to upholding the rule of law and human rights. Legal experts argue that persistent judicial manipulations in politically sensitive cases erode trust in the judiciary and could lead to further unrest. As this case continues to unfold, many Nigerians and international observers are closely monitoring the legal proceedings. Will the Nigerian government abide by the judiciary’s rulings, or will Kanu’s detention remain a point of contention? Read more about Nigeria’s judicial system and human rights READ ALSO: Follow the LMSINT MEDIA channel on WhatsApp: Join Our WhatsApp Group Hear: Chat on WhatsApp Join our Telegram Chanel.
Kindly Share:
FirstBank’s Response to Reports on Lifting of Restrictions FirstBank Nigeria Plc has refuted claims that banks have lifted the lien on the accounts of General Hydrocarbons Limited (GHL). The bank clarified that while the Federal High Court in Lagos recently lifted the Mareva order on GHL’s assets and accounts, full compliance with this order is still in process. Following the court’s decision, GHL publicly stated that banks had already removed all restrictions from its accounts, as well as those of its directors and stakeholders. However, FirstBank has labeled this claim as misleading, explaining that compliance with such legal directives involves a structured process that has not yet been finalized. Legal Standpoint: Why FirstBank Is Holding Back In an official statement titled “Re-misinformation on Mareva Injunction on GHL,” FirstBank stressed that it had already appealed the court’s decision and requested an injunction to suspend the lifting of the restrictions until the appeal is determined. The bank emphasized that until the appeal process is resolved, all concerned parties, including banks, are expected to maintain the status quo. This means that restrictions on GHL’s accounts remain in place until further legal clarifications are made. Commitment to Legal Resolution FirstBank reassured its shareholders, depositors, and stakeholders that it remains committed to handling the situation transparently and lawfully. The bank also vowed to explore all legal avenues to recover debts owed by GHL. A part of the official statement read: “Our attention has been drawn to recent media reports suggesting that some banks have begun complying with the ruling of Honourable Justice Deinde Dipeolu of the Federal High Court, Lagos, which lifted the Mareva order on the assets of General Hydrocarbons Limited (GHL), its directors, and shareholders. We would like to state that such action is premature, as the necessary steps for compliance have not yet been completed.” “Notwithstanding, FirstBank has appealed against the discharge of the Mareva order and has applied for an injunction and/or suspension of the discharge order, pending the determination of the appeal. Given the pending appeal and Motion for Injunction, banks are required to maintain the status quo.” The Root of the Legal Dispute The conflict between FirstBank and GHL stems from an outstanding debt of $225.8 million, which was granted as a loan for oil mining operations. FirstBank claims it fulfilled its obligations under the loan agreements but has accused GHL of lacking transparency and good governance. FirstBank’s Assurance to Stakeholders FirstBank reassured all stakeholders that it remains financially stable and strong. The bank reaffirmed its commitment to ensuring that debtors fulfill their obligations and that it will continue pursuing all necessary legal actions to recover the funds. “We wish to assure our valued stakeholders that FirstBank remains strong, stable, and fully committed to resolving this issue in line with the provisions of the law. We are actively addressing all matters with transparency and diligence, while remaining focused on protecting the interests of our shareholders and depositors.” Conclusion While the court order lifting restrictions on GHL’s accounts has been issued, FirstBank maintains that compliance is not immediate due to its ongoing appeal. The legal process must be completed before any changes take effect. In the meantime, restrictions remain in place as the bank seeks to recover the outstanding debt. READ ALSO: Follow the LMSINT MEDIA channel on WhatsApp: Join Our WhatsApp Group Hear: Chat on WhatsApp Join our Telegram Chanel.
