A three-man panel of the Court of Appeal, Lagos Division, on Wednesday, August 6, 2025, restored the preservation order on 14 properties and the sum of N400m linked to Yahaya Bello, a former governor of Kogi State.
Justice Nicholas Oweibo of the Federal High Court sitting in Ikoyi, Lagos had, on February 22, 2023, in a suit filed by the Lagos Zonal Directorate of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission, ordered the preservation of the properties, including “Hotel Apartment Community, Burj Khalifa lying, being and situate at, Plot 160 Municipality NO 345-7562, Sky View Building No 1, Property No 401, Floor 4, Dubai U.A.E.”, as well as the fund reasonably suspected to have been derived from unlawful activities.
The order was made pursuant to Sections 9 and 10 of the Proceeds of Crime (Recovery and Management) Act, 2022.
However, on April 26, 2023, the trial court struck out the EFCC’s suit seeking the final forfeiture of the assets because Bello, then a sitting governor, enjoyed constitutional immunity under Section 308 of the 1999 Constitution.
Dissatisfied with the ruling, the EFCC, through its counsel, Rotimi Oyedepo, SAN, Bilkisu Buhari Bala, S.I. Suleiman, and Chinenye C. Okezie, had approached the Court of Appeal, arguing that the trial court erred in law by applying the immunity clause to a proceedings that concerned properties reasonably suspected to be proceeds of crime.
The EFCC contended that the immunity provided under Section 308 does not extend to assets linked to alleged unlawful activities and that the trial court failed to follow judicial precedents, including EFCC v. Fayose (2018) LPELR-44131(CA) and Fawehinmi v. IGP (2002) 7 NWLR (Pt.767) 606, which provided clarity on the scope of the immunity clause.
In urging the appellate court to restore the order, Oyedepo averred that “Justice Oweibo erred in law when he struck out the suit, as the immunity conferred on the Respondent against any civil or criminal proceedings during his incumbency as a governor of Kogi State does not extend to properties reasonably suspected to be proceeds of crime traced to him.
“That the court erred and occasioned a miscarriage of justice when it refused to bind itself with the decision of the Court of Appeal in EFCC V Fayose (2018) LPELR 44131 CA and the decision of the Supreme Court in Fawehinmi V IGP (2002)7 NWLR (PT767)606, on the proper interpretation of Section 308 of the 1999 Constitution.
“That the learned trial court erred in law when it struck out a preservation order of properties reasonably suspected to have been derived from proceeds of unlawful activities notwithstanding its findings that the Respondent failed to show the genuine origin of funds used to acquire the properties under the preservation order.”
In a lead judgment delivered by Justice Nimpar B Yargata, the three-man panel of Justices confirmed the EFCC’s position, and held that the lower court erred when it struck out the suit, despite finding that the Respondent had failed to show the legitimate origin of the funds used to acquire the properties.
The Appeal court also affirmed that the trial judge misapplied Section 308 and ordered the restoration of the preservation order.
The three-man panel, therefore, directed that the suit for the final forfeiture of the properties should proceed accordingly.
