The Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) has lost its bid to seize the funds in 15 bank accounts allegedly linked to Patience Jonathan, former first lady.
Mojisola Olatoregun, the presiding judge, held that the bank accounts in question were already involved in a litigation process before two other courts.
This comes one day after a court in Abuja ruled that the commission could not seize some properties belonging to the former first lady.
On October 20, 2017, EFCC filed an application praying the court for an order of interim forfeiture of the funds and some properties belonging to Jonathan.
This was with particular reference to the property at Plot No. 1758, Cadastral Zone, Mabushi and Plot No.1350, Cadastral Zone, central business district, Abuja.
The EFCC through its counsel, Benjamin Mangi, told the court that the application was predicated on the fact that the property was a subject matter of investigation, inquiry and examination.
Mangi denied that the commission took part in the demolition of part of the building as was being alleged by Jonathan, adding that the suit before Nnamdi Dimgba, a judge, was different from the one before John Tsoho, another judge.
He prayed the court to refuse Jonathan’s application asking it not to entertain the ex parte motion and to grant EFCC’s prayer for forfeiture of the two properties pending investigations.
Jonathan’s lawyer, Mike Ozekhome (SAN), filed anf application seeking to stop the ex parte motion on the grounds that the properties were already a subject matter of litigation.
He said that the EFCC had filed another suit in respect to the same properties in the same ederal high court, Abuja.
Ozekhome urged the court to condemn the action of the federal government whose agent demolished part of the property while the matter was pending in court.
He prayed the court not to grant the EFCC’s prayer for forfeiture of the said properties, saying they belonged to a separate entity, the Aruera Foundation.
According to him, the foundation has not breached any law.
The court had adjourned the matter till April 30.