Justice Inyang Ekwo of the Federal High Court in Abuja has granted an application by a former Minister of Petroleum, Diezani Alison-Madueke, to amend her suit challenging the order obtained by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission, EFCC, for final forfeiture of her seized assets.
The judge granted the request after the motion was moved by Diezani’s lawyer, Godwin Inyinbor, and the EFCC’s counsel, Divine Oguru.
At the day’s proceeding, Inyinbor informed the court that they had already filed a motion for amendment of their originating process, revealing that the defendant had been duly served.
The judge therefore gave Diezani five days to file and serve the amended processes, granting EFCC 14 days from the date of service to respond, as the matter was subsequently adjourned until March 17 for further mention.
Alison-Madueke had sought an order extending the time to seek leave to apply to the court for an order to set aside the EFCC’s public notice issued to conduct a public sale on her property.
In the motion dated and filed on Jan. 6, 2023, by her lawyer, the former minister sought five orders from the court.
The former minister, who argued that the various orders were made without jurisdiction, said these “ought to be set aside ex debito justitiae.”
She said she was not given a fair hearing in all the proceedings leading to the orders.
“The various court orders issued in favour of the respondent and upon which the respondent issued the public notice were issued in breach of the applicant’s right to fair hearing as guaranteed by Section 36 (1) of the 1999 Constitution, as altered, and other similar constitutional provisions,” she said.
She argued that she was neither served with the charge sheet and proof of evidence in any of the charges nor any other summons regarding the criminal charges pending against her before the court.
She further argued that the courts were misled into making several final forfeiture orders against her assets through suppression or non-disclosure of material facts.
“The several applications upon which the courts made the final order of forfeiture against the applicant were obtained upon gross misstatements, misrepresentations, non-disclosure, concealment, and suppression of material facts.
“The court has the power to set aside same ex debito justitiae, as a void order is as good as if it was never made at all.
“The orders were made without recourse to the constitutional right to fair hearing and right to property accorded the applicant by the constitution.
“The applicant was never served with the processes of court in all the proceedings that led to the order of final forfeiture,” she said, among other grounds given.
