Today News Africa is a US-based international news organization focused on US-Africa policy and breaking news. Our goal is to provide truthful and exclusive stories to a diverse audience across North America and the African Continent. Subscribe to our news page at https://todaynewsafrica.com/ and Follow us on Twitter @todaynewsafrica
Justice Mojisola Olatoregun of the Federal High Court sitting in Ikoyi, Lagos has adjourned till March 13 and 14, 2019 for further hearing in the application seeking the final forfeiture of the sums of $8.4 million and N7.4 billion linked to Patience Jonathan, the wife of former President Goodluck Jonathan.
The companies named in the suit marked FHC/L/CS/620/18 are: Globus Integrated Service Limited, Finchley Top Homes Limited, AM-PM Global Network Limited, Pagmat Oil and Gas Limited and Magel Resort Limited.
The monies were discovered to be lodged in some banks, including Skye Bank Plc (now Polaris Bank Plc), Diamond Bank Plc, Stabic-IBTC and First Bank Plc.
[read_more id="2" more="Read full article" less="Read less"]
Justice Olatoregun had ordered an interim forfeiture of the various sum of money on April 20, 2018, following an ex-parte application filed by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission, EFCC.
At the last adjourned sitting, counsel to the applicant, Rotimi Oyedepo, told the court about an application dated May 8, 2018 seeking the final forfeiture of the various sums of money.
The application was supported with an affidavit deposed to on May 20, 2018 by an operative of the EFCC, Orji Chukwuma.
However, Ifedayo Adedipe, SAN, counsel to the first respondent, Jonathan, urged the court to refuse the application on the ground that sufficient facts had not been placed before the court to warrant a final order.
Counsel for the third, fourth, fifth and sixth respondents, Mike Ozekhome, SAN, also argued that the application was premature in view of the provisions of the Advanced Fee Fraud and other Related Offences Act.
Delivering ruling today, Justice Olatoregun held that the affidavits before the court were conflicting.
While adjourning the matter, the trial judge further ordered both the applicant and the respondents to present more witnesses for proper cross-examination in order to clarify the issues.