Diezani is also requesting an order directing the EFCC to retrieve any properties that have already been sold to third parties. She claims that the EFCC breached her fundamental rights to a fair hearing by auctioning off her assets publicly.
According to her, despite the EFCC’s claims that a final order of forfeiture was granted, she was never served with any charges, proof of evidence, or summons related to any pending court matter.
The former minister further alleges that the EFCC obtained forfeiture orders against her through misrepresentations and concealment of facts.
“In many cases, the final forfeiture orders were made against properties which affected the applicant’s interest; the courts were misled into making the final order of forfeiture against the applicant, based on suppression or non-disclosure of material facts,” the application reads.
“The several applications upon which the courts made the final order of forfeiture against the applicant were obtained upon gross misstatements, misrepresentations, non-disclosure, concealment, and suppression of material facts, and thus the court has the power to set aside the same ex-debito justitiae, as a void order is as good as if it was never made at all.”
Diezani further argued that the various court orders on forfeiture were made without the requisite jurisdiction and recourse to her constitutional right to a fair hearing.
The former minister insisted that she was never served with relevant court processes that led to the orders for final forfeiture of her assets, adding that the EFCC was aware she left the country seeking medical treatment since 2015.
“The applicant did not have any access to newspapers circulating within Nigeria during this period as she was not in Nigeria at all material times relevant to this suit,” the application stated.
“The courts, in granting the final order of forfeiture in a matter that is said to flow from criminal activities and which are criminal in nature, and without any conviction of the applicant, granted the order of final forfeiture on minimum proof based on the civil standards of preponderance of evidence or balance of probability, instead of the strict proof applicable in criminal trials or civil proceedings where there is an allegation of crime.
“Only a court of law can declare an act as constituting unlawful activities, and there was no such order that had declared the alleged conduct of the applicant to be unlawful.
“A mere allegation by the respondent (EFCC) that the act or action of the applicant constituted unlawful activities will not suffice in the circumstance.”
She told the court that she has three suits against the EFCC pending before courts in Lagos, contending that “since the forfeiture orders are being challenged, no sale can validly take place as such sale would be rendered nugatory.”
Meanwhile, the EFCC has filed a counter-affidavit challenging the competence of Diezani’s application.
The affidavit, deposed to by Oyakhilome Ekienabor, a litigation officer, refuted several claims made by the applicant.
Ekienabor said the forfeiture orders were not issued in violation of the applicant’s rights to a fair hearing, noting that the properties were disposed of following due process.
“The final forfeiture orders pursuant to which the sale of the properties was conducted are still in force and have not been set aside,” he added.
“The forfeited properties were disposed of in accordance with the due process of law.”
He further stated Diezani was represented during one of the proceedings, but the court ultimately issued the final forfeiture orders after considering submissions made by her counsel.
At the resumed proceeding in the matter on Monday, Godwin Iyibor, who appeared for the applicant, requested time to file his response to EFCC’s counter-affidavit, which he said was served on him on March 14.
The judge emphasised the need to expedite the case, considering that it was filed in 2023.
The EFCC’s counsel, Divine Oguru, apologised for the delay in responding and assured the court of readiness at the next hearing.
“We will be ready to go on in the next adjourned date, my lord,” he said.
The judge adjourned the matter to March 27 for hearing.
This development comes as part of her ongoing efforts to challenge the forfeiture of her properties. The court has granted her request to amend her challenge to the forfeiture, with the EFCC given 14 days to respond.
