Justice Jude Onwuegbuzie has issued a final forfeiture order for an estate situated at Plot 109, Cadastral Zone CO9, Lokogoma District, Abuja, covering 150,462.84 square metres. The Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) had earlier obtained both interim and final forfeiture orders, transferring ownership of the property to the Federal Government.
While the estate was originally seized from an unnamed ex-government official, widespread speculation connected it to former Central Bank Governor Godwin Emefiele.
Represented by Senior Advocate of Nigeria, Adeyinka Kotoye, Emefiele approached the court seeking permission to apply out of time to challenge the forfeiture rulings made on December 2 and 24, 2024. He claimed that he was unaware of the proceedings, arguing that the EFCC had placed the notice in a less prominent section of *The Punch* newspaper, making it hard for him to take timely action. He also cited his involvement in multiple ongoing criminal trials in Abuja and Lagos as a factor that prevented him from discovering the publication.
Emefiele further accused the EFCC of intentionally hiding the forfeiture case from him, despite having regular interactions with the agency concerning his other legal issues.
In his decision, Justice Onwuegbuzie clarified that although the legal principle of *functus officio*—which limits a court’s powers after a judgment—is valid, a court may revisit its rulings under certain conditions. He referenced Section 17(2) of the Advance Fee Fraud and Other Fraud Related Offences Act, 2006, which outlines how notices in forfeiture cases should be handled.
The judge dismissed Emefiele’s claim that the EFCC’s publication was obscure, pointing out that a half-page announcement in a widely circulated national newspaper does not qualify as hidden.
Justice Onwuegbuzie emphasized that only those with a clear legal interest in a forfeited asset can intervene in such proceedings. He concluded that Emefiele had over 14 days to contest the order but did not act within the allowed time, leading to the rejection of his motion. The court ultimately ruled in favour of the EFCC.
