In a landmark decision delivered on the 30th of April 2025, the Court of Appeal Lagos Division, overturned a November 1, 2024, final forfeiture order of seven (7) landed properties belonging to Godwin Emiefele (the “Appellant”).
BACKGROUND OF FACTS
The Federal High Court had, pursuant to Section 17 of the Advance Fee Fraud and Other Fraud-Related Offences Act 2006 (AFFA), granted the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (the “EFCC” or “Respondent”) a final forfeiture of the Appellant’s assets on the basis that they were “reasonably suspected” to have been acquired with unlawful proceeds. By setting aside that order, the Appellate Court has not only clarified how courts must strictly interpret the procedural requirements for forfeiture under Section 17 the AFFA but also explains how courts must view and interpret the use of the word “Interest” under Section 17 of the said Act.
Acting through counsel C.C. Okezie, the Respondent obtained an Ex-parte interim forfeiture order against the Appellant’s properties including: Two (2) detached duplexes at 17b Hakeem Odumosu Street, Lekki Phase 1; An undeveloped land (1,919.592 sqm) at Oyinkan Abayomi Drive, Ikoyi; A bungalow at 65a Oyinkan Abayomi Drive; A four-bedroom duplex at 12a Probyn Road; An industrial complex under construction on 22 plots in Agbor, Delta State; Eight (8) semi-detached apartments on 8a Adekunle Lawal Road; and A full duplex at 2a Bank Road—all on the ground that they, along with certain cash and shareholdings, were “reasonably suspected” to be proceeds of unlawful activity.
Justice Akintayo Aluko the vacation judge at the Trial Court directed the Respondent to publish the interim order in either of the following National Dailies including The Punch, The Nation, or The Guardian, and also on the website of the Respondent (the EFCC), within fourteen (14) days to afford interested parties an opportunity to be heard.
Upon transfer of the matter to Justice Dipe-Olu, the Appellant’s Counsel, Olalekan Ojo SAN, moved to set aside the interim forfeiture order and sought a Stay of the Civil Proceedings (Suit No. FHC/L/MISC/500/24), arguing that continuation of the forfeiture process—while parallel criminal charges (ID/23787C/2024 in the Lagos High Court and FCT/HC/CR/264/2023 in the FCT High Court) remained pending—would prejudice his client’s constitutional rights.
The Trial Judge in granting the order for final forfeiture stated thus:
“There must be something dark about the acquisition of the properties which Emefiele and the companies do not want to come to light.”
Finding that the Appellant had failed to demonstrate any lawful interest in the assets, the Trial Court granted a final forfeiture order vesting all seven (7) properties in the Federal Government of Nigeria.
Dissatisfied with the ruling of the Trial Court, the Appellant through his counsel Olalekan Ojo, SAN filed a Notice of Appeal (CA/LAG/CV/1051/24), contending that the trial court erred in its evaluation of the affidavit evidence before the court before granting the order for final forfeiture of the properties and in its refusal to recognize his legal and equitable interests in the properties.
APPELLANT’s ARGUMENT
The Appellant’s brief of arguement is settled and adopted by OLALEKAN OJO (SAN).
Learned senior advocate for the Appellant Olalekan Ojo SAN submits that pursuant to the provisions of section 17 (2) of the Advance Fee Fraud and other related offences act 2006 to which the respondent commenced the non forfeiture based proceedings, any person who may have interest in the property or claim ownership of the property may show cause why the property subject matter of the interim order of forfeiture should not be finally forfeited to the Federal Government of Nigeria.
The Learned SAN argued both together and submits that the word “Interest” under section 17 (2) of the Advance Fee Fraud and other related offences act should be interpreted in its natural and ordinary sense because the word as used in the statute was clear and unambiguous.
The learned SAN submits that the depositions in the Appellants affidavit showed cause before the trial court with compelling finality the beneficial interest of the Appellant in the Properties. The learned SAN submitted further that the Respondent neither denied nor controverted the material depositions in the Apellant’s affidavit to show cause nor did the trial Judge make any finding in the Judgment to the effect that the depositions are incredible or devoid of any probative value. That the trial court did not adequately or properly evaluate the affidavit evidence before it as is enjoined to do.
The learned SAN posits that the trial judge erred in law by failing to stay proceedings in the suit despite the trial court acknowledging the similarities in the present action and one of the criminal cases between the parties but yet refused to activate its inherent jurisdiction to stay proceedings. The learned SAN submitted that the law under S17 of the Advance Fee Fraud and other related offences act 2006 clearly spells out the process that each party to a forfeiture proceeding is expected to file and does not provide for the filing of a counter affidavit to an affidavit to show cause.
RESPONDENT’s ARGUEMENT
The Respondent’s brief of arguement on the other hand settled and adopted by ROTIMI OYEDEPO (SAN).
Learned senior advocate for the respondent argued that upon the grant of the interim forfeiture,the burden now shifted to the Apellant to show cause why an order of final forfeiture should not be made under section 17 (2) of the Advanced fee fraud and other related offences act 2006.That an order of forfeiture under this section shall not necessarily be based on a conviction for an offence under the act or any other law.
The Learned senior advocate submitted that the Appellant did not produce a single evidence on how he acquired the forfeited properties but only placed the purported income he received from Zenith Bank and Central Bank before the court and that how he used the funds to acquire the properties were not shown to the court. There is no single evidence of transfer of legitimate funds from the Appellant to the sellers of the properties provided.None of the properties were acquired in the name of the Appellant but in the names of several companies wherein the Appellant was neither a shareholder nor a director.That the companies in whose names the properties were acquired did not challenge the Forfeiture of the properties. The learned senior advocate further submitted that the Appellant failed to declare all the forfeited assets to the code of conduct bureau and having not shown cause how the Appellant legitimately acquired the forfeited properties that the decision of the trial court forfeiting them to the Federal Government of Nigeria is perfectly in order.
On the principle of resulting trust it is submitted that the submissions were totally misplaced and referred the court to the earnings of the Appellant in the declaration form of the code of conduct bureau dated 15th May 2019. That the Appellant was required to declare cash at hand and that in doing so the Appellant to show he had no cash at hand crossed the columns for declared amount as cash at hand. That it therefore follows that the Appellant has no financial capacity to finance the acquisition of the forfeited properties with his declared known,
DECISION (s) OF THE COURT OF APPEAL
On appeal against the Federal High Court’s final forfeiture order of November 1, 2024, the Court of Appeal held inter-alia that the Trial Judge erred in his evaluation of the Appellant’s affidavit evidence and in concluding that the properties in issue were reasonably suspected to have been acquired with unlawful proceeds.
The Trial Court failed to engage with nor indeed even acknowledge the detailed facts deposed in Appellant’s affidavit to show cause as to why the properties in question should not be forfeited.
Although legal title vested in the names of various corporate entities, neither of which the Appellant was a director nor a shareholder, the affidavit established that Godwin Emefiele (the Appellant) had instructed his personal solicitor, Mr. Ifeanyi Omeke, to acquire the properties on his behalf and funded those acquisitions from his own resources.
These circumstances gave rise to the doctrine of constructive trust which in turn demonstrated a compelling beneficial interest in favour of the Appellant.
The Appellant deposed to an affidavit as evidence to show how the purchase monies were derived but the Respondent did not controvert to either of those facts. These facts include:
- His severance package from Zenith Bank (in excess of ₦1,750,000,000).
- Proceeds from Zenith Bank shareholdings (approximately ₦500,000,000).
- His ten-year remuneration as CBN Governor (₦350,000,000 per annum, plus quarterly allowances of N75,000,000).
- His estacode allowance for foreign trips as CBN Governor (summing up to $6,285,000)
The Appellant exhibited corporate governance codes and CBN/SEC circulars corroborating his lawful earnings. The mere fact that assets were registered in the names of companies or proxies does not, without more, render them proceeds of crime. The absence of a direct corporate shareholding did not negate the Appellant’s equitable interest in these properties.
The Respondent relied on declarations filed by the Appellant between 2014 and 2019. Yet all contested property acquisitions occurred between 2020 and 2023 after the period covered by those forms. The Court held it was impermissible to treat earlier asset declarations as evidence against later-acquired properties. The parties’ versions on key issues ownership, source of funds, notice, and procedure were in irreconcilable conflict. The Court emphasized that, at a minimum, viva voce evidence and cross-examination were required before making final forfeiture orders in non-conviction proceedings provable and legitimate income and all the forfeited properties were acquired between 2020 and 2023 with no direct or indirect connection with the lawful income of the Appellant. The learned Senior advocate submitted that the properties were acquired and title documents executed in the name of those companies to conceal the unlawful origin of the funds used for their acquisitions.
The Court of Appeal held thus:
That the final forfeiture order of 1st November 2024 by the trial court is hereby set aside and that the matter is remitted to the Federal High Court for re-hearing and to be reassigned to another judge, with directions to admit and properly evaluate the affidavit evidence, permit oral testimony and cross-examination on disputed facts and reassess compliance with Section 17 of the Advance Fee Fraud and Other Fraud-Related Offences Act 2006 in light of the Appellant’s proven beneficial interest.
CONCLUSION
The rationale behind the decision of the Court of Appeal underscores the significance and magnitude of affidavit evidence in non-conviction based forfeiture proceedings.
The Court of Appeal found that the Trial Judge “overlooked” key averments in the Appellant’s affidavit namely; the detailed funding history, corporate-form acquisitions via his solicitor, and documentary support of lawful earnings. By disregarding those facts, the Trial Court failed its gate-keeping function and risked depriving a bona fide interest-holder of property without adequate proof or adversarial testing the Appellant deposed and the Respondent did not controvert the origin and source of the money used to acquire the properties.
The decision of the Court once again reaffirms the principle of constructive trust and beneficial interest. Equity will recognize a constructive trust where legal title is held by one party, but the beneficial interest lies elsewhere especially where the true owner advances the purchase price. In forfeiture proceedings, such an interest must be protected unless the state clearly rebuts it. Godwin Emefiele’s uncontroverted evidence that he supplied all purchase funds (severance package, share proceeds, CBN governor’s salary) and instructed his solicitor to register title in corporate names gave rise to a presumptive constructive trust in his favor.
The Appellate Court held that this established “with compelling finality” his equitable stake, and that the EFCC bore the burden of disproving it before seeking final forfeiture. Acquisition by proxy or nominee is not, per se, illicit. The mere fact that property is registered in another name does not shift the burden to the owner to prove innocence; rather, it calls for careful inquiry into the true source of funds and the relationship between nominee and beneficial owner. The Court of Appeal rejected any inference that proxy-held assets equate to proceeds of crime. It held that, absent evidence of wrongdoing, the title arrangement was innocuous often employed for privacy or administrative convenience and did not satisfy the EFCC’s onus to show a “reasonable suspicion” of illicit acquisition.
Declarations of assets by public officers pursuant to constitutional or statutory codes relate only to the specified reporting period. They cannot be used retroactively to impugn later acquisitions. The Appellate Justices observed the mismatch between Emefiele’s 2014–2019 disclosures and the 2020–2023 property purchases. They held it was legally improper to treat earlier declarations as evidence against assets acquired after that period, and that doing so contravened the purpose of asset-declaration regimes.
Although Non-conviction based forfeiture under Section 17 of the Advance Fee Fraud and Other Fraud-Related Offences Act 2006 serves as a powerful instrument to recover suspected unlawfully acquired assets quickly, but its effectiveness hinges on rigorous adherence to procedure. In balancing the state’s interest in disrupting illicit finance of assets against individual rights, courts must remain vigilant guardians of procedural fairness ensuring that interim measures do not become permanent deprivations without full and fair adjudication.
