JUST IN: Appeal Court Reinstates Forfeiture of Yahaya Bello’s Assets in Lagos, Abuja, and Dubai

The Court of Appeal in Lagos has reinstated an interim forfeiture order on 14 high-value properties linked to former Kogi State Governor, Yahaya Bello, reversing an earlier ruling by the Federal High Court that had nullified the order.

Delivering judgment via virtual session on Wednesday, a three-member panel of justices—led by Justice Yargata Nimpar and supported by Justices Danlami Senchi and Paul Bassi—held that the Federal High Court erred in law when it dismissed the case based on Section 308 of the 1999 Constitution, which grants immunity to serving governors.

The appellate court clarified that while immunity protects individuals from prosecution while in office, it does not extend to properties suspected to be acquired through unlawful means.

As a result, the court reinstated the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission’s (EFCC) interim preservation order and directed the agency to proceed with a substantive hearing to determine whether the properties should be permanently forfeited to the Federal Government.

The ruling followed an appeal filed by the EFCC, challenging the decision of Justice Nicholas Oweibo of the Federal High Court, who had earlier set aside the interim order.

The disputed properties, located in Lagos, Abuja, and Dubai, were initially seized under an interim order granted via an ex parte application by the EFCC. Among the assets is a luxury apartment in Dubai’s iconic Burj Khalifa.

Justice Oweibo had vacated the order following arguments by Bello’s legal team, which claimed the properties were acquired before his tenure as governor and unrelated to public funds. They cited Section 308 to argue that the EFCC’s action violated the immunity provision and also questioned the Federal High Court’s jurisdiction over properties located outside Lagos. Additionally, they argued that the Proceeds of Crime Act, 2022 should not apply retroactively.

EFCC counsel, Rotimi Oyedepo (SAN), countered that the agency acted within its legal mandate and that the immunity clause does not prevent investigations or the preservation of assets suspected to be proceeds of crime.

Agreeing with the EFCC’s position, Justice Nimpar stated that “the immunity granted to a sitting governor does not preclude the court from determining the status of property reasonably suspected to be the proceeds of crime.”

The appeal court dismissed all preliminary objections raised by Bello’s counsel and concluded that the case ought to be fully heard rather than struck out.