At the resumed hearing of the case on Tuesday, Charles Adeogun, announced appearance for Lawal, who is joined as respondent in the suit, said his client is challenging the said forfeiture orders.
Justice Muslim Hassan of the Federal High Court Lagos had issued the interim order of forfeiture of the sum to the Federal Government, following an exparte application by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission, EFCC seeking similar relief.
The court had also issued 14 days to any interested party to appear and prove the legitimacy of the monies, failing which the funds would be permanently forfeited to the federal government.
Arguing his application, Adeogun, on behalf of Lawal, urged the court to issue an order, directing a refund of the sum of N9.08 billion to his client, on the grounds that same was obtained by coercion.
He argued that before such forfeiture orders can be made, two essential elements must be satisfied, namely “that the property in question is unclaimed, and that such property or funds forms proceeds of an unlawful act’’.
He said: “We became aware of the forfeiture order when the interim order was served on us; my client was never confronted with these sets of facts during his incarceration at the EFCC.
“After service of the orders, I requested for the statement of my client to the commission, but same was never given to me,’’ he said.
He argued that his client admitted having received the sum of $25 million in clear dispensation of his duties, but was coerced by the commission to further admit receiving a total of $65 million.
According to him, the sum of $40 million was therefore taken as an overdraft from his bank to offset the alleged extra sum.
He, therefore, urged the court to order the immediate refund of the sum to his client.
On the other hand, Rotimi Oyedepo, appeared for the EFCC, informed the court that in line with its interim orders of 6 January, the EFCC had served same on the respondent (Lawal) which they are now challenging.
Oyedepo submitted that the tenure of Section 17 of the Advanced Fee Fraud and other related offence Act makes a property which is reasonably suspected to be proceeds of crime, forfeitable to the federal government.
He queried: “Going by the facts and circumstances of this particular case, can it be said that the sum of N9.08 billion which is the naira equivalent of $40 million, was not reasonably suspected to form proceeds of a crime?’’
He argued that paragraph 4 of the applicant’s reply affidavit showed a meeting of the minds of some members of staff of the Nigeria National Petroleum Corporation (NNPC) as well as the respondent to launder funds.
“My lord, paragraph 4 of our reply affidavit shows a meeting of the minds of one Gbenga Komolafe, former group MD, Crude Oil Marketing Division NNPC; Prince Haruna Momoh, former Group MD, Petroleum Product Marketing Company; Umar Farouk Ahmed, Group MD Nigerian Product Marketing Company, as well as Dauda Lawal, to launder funds on behalf of former Petroleum Minister, Diezani Allison Madueke,’’ he said.
According to Oyedepo, “it will amount to contesting the obvious for Lawal to argue that he had no knowledge of the said sums’’.
The EFCC lawyer argued that it was uncommon for a law enforcement agency like the EFCC to detain a person in its custody in perpetuity, without an order of the court, adding that the statement of Lawal was lawfully obtained.
“The respondent was duly cautioned before he voluntarily made his statement at the commission, and his lawyer even appended his signature further attesting to the fact that the statements were obtained voluntarily.
“So having freely volunteered a statement, he cannot urge my lord not to attach full probative value to his statement.
“I submit that the appropriate order in the circumstance is for the court to order a final forfeiture of the sum of N9.08 billion already surrendered by the respondent, to the Federal Government.’’
He also urged the court to order the forfeiture of other sums to which no claim had been laid.
“I urge the court to so hold,’’ he said.
After listening to the submission of counsels representing parties in the suit, Justice Hassan fixed 16 February for judgment.