Emefiele Appeals Forfeiture of 753 Abuja Duplexes, Alleges Miscarriage of Justice

Godwin Emefiele, former governor of the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN), has filed an appeal at the Court of Appeal seeking to overturn both the interim and final forfeiture of 753 duplexes in Abuja.

In the appeal dated April 30, 2025, Emefiele argued that the forfeiture orders were issued without proper evidence or due process. He contends that the proceedings violated his constitutional rights and amounted to a miscarriage of justice.

Background

In December 2024, the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) secured a final forfeiture order for the estate, which it described as its “largest single asset recovery” since its inception in 2003. The property, allegedly linked to a former high-ranking government official, was not initially associated with Emefiele. The company initially listed as the owner denied involvement, prompting Emefiele to join the suit as an interested party through his lawyer, A.M. Kotoye.

Emefiele later approached the Federal Capital Territory (FCT) High Court to seek an extension of time to set aside the forfeiture orders, claiming he was unaware of the proceedings. He argued that the EFCC published the interim forfeiture notice in an obscure section of a newspaper, limiting his ability to respond.

Justice Jude Onwegbuzie dismissed his application, ruling that the half-page notice in a national newspaper met the legal requirements under Section 17(2) of the Advance Fee Fraud and Other Fraud-Related Offences Act 2006. The judge maintained that the notice could not reasonably be considered hidden.

Following the ruling, the EFCC handed over the estate to the federal ministry of housing and urban development.

Grounds for Appeal

Emefiele claims the trial court failed to evaluate critical affidavits and documents properly.

“The entire ruling is a miscarriage of justice,” he stated. “The orders were made in breach of the 1999 Constitution and are therefore null and void.”

He also insists he holds both legal and equitable interests in the estate, contrary to the court’s conclusion that he failed to establish ownership.