-
Appeal Court overturns earlier ruling that halted EFCC’s seizure of ex-Governor Yahaya Bello’s assets
-
Justices affirm that immunity does not cover allegedly criminal property acquisitions
-
EFCC free to proceed with case for permanent forfeiture of luxury assets in Lagos, Abuja, Dubai
The Court of Appeal sitting in Lagos has reinstated the interim forfeiture order previously granted in favour of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) against 14 properties linked to former Kogi State Governor, Mr Yahaya Bello.
The three-member appellate panel, led by Justice Yargata Nimpar, ruled that the Federal High Court erred by relying on Section 308 of the 1999 Constitution to halt the matter. The Court held that while the Constitution grants sitting governors immunity from prosecution, such immunity does not extend to properties reasonably suspected to be proceeds of crime.
The judgment, delivered virtually on Wednesday and supported by Justices Danlami Senchi and Paul Bassi, reinstated the EFCC’s interim order and directed the anti-corruption body to continue its pursuit of a substantive forfeiture hearing.
ATTENTION: Click “HERE” to join our WhatsApp group and receive News updates directly on your WhatsApp!
The appeal was filed by the EFCC against the ruling of Justice Nicholas Oweibo of the Federal High Court, who had previously dismissed the agency’s case and lifted the interim forfeiture order.
According to court documents, the affected properties are located in Lagos, Abuja, and Dubai, including a high-end residence in the Burj Khalifa. The EFCC alleged that the assets were acquired with proceeds of corruption.
In his defence, Mr Yahaya Bello claimed that the properties were acquired before his tenure as governor, thus falling outside the scope of public funds. His legal team invoked Section 308 for immunity and also challenged the court’s jurisdiction over properties outside Lagos.
Further objections raised by Bello’s counsel questioned the retrospective application of the Proceeds of Crime Act, 2022, arguing that the law could not apply to assets acquired before it came into effect.
EFCC counsel Mr Rotimi Oyedepo (SAN) countered that the agency was acting within its statutory mandate and that the immunity clause could not be used to shield suspected illicit assets from legal scrutiny.
In her lead judgment, Justice Nimpar stated that “the immunity granted to a sitting governor does not preclude the court from determining the status of property reasonably suspected to be the proceeds of crime.”
The Court dismissed all preliminary objections raised by Mr Bello’s legal team and ruled that the matter must proceed to full hearing to determine whether the assets will be permanently forfeited to the Federal Government.
