A firm linked to the former first lady, Patience Jonathan, and three other companies filed an appeal before the Appeal Court’s Lagos Division challenging Monday’s full forfeiture order of N9.2 billion and Mrs. Jonathan’s $8.4 million.
The total amount is N12.4 billion.
Magel Resort Limited, joined by Finchley Top Homes Limited, AM PM Global Network, and Pagmat Oil and Gas Limited are challenging the decision by the federal high court.
After the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) secured an interim forfeiture order to freeze their bank accounts in 2016, the companies were among those affected
The appellants claim they challenge entire decision and seek to set it aside by the appeal court and return the forfeited funds to the appellants ‘ accounts.
On Monday, the judge Mojisola Olatoregun instructed the return to the federal government of the funds residing at Diamond Bank, Fidelity Bank, Ecobank, Stanbic IBTC, Skye Bank (now Polaris Bank), and First Bank.
In the course of the lawsuit, Mrs Jonathan asserted possession of the funds, stating that they were proceeds from Nigerians’ goodwill donations ”she enjoyed as the wife of a deputy governor, governor, and president, as well as proceeds of funds raised when she launched her NGO, Women 4 Change and Development Initiative, in 2010”.
The husband of Mrs. Jonathan, Goodluck, served as their indigenous Bayelsa State’s deputy governor and governor before becoming president between 2010 and 2015.
The first, second, third, and fourth participants, respectively, are the EFCC, Mrs Jonathan, Globus Integrated Services, and Esther Oba.
The appellants, through their lawyer, Mike Ozekhome, stated in their six grounds of appeal that the lesser court created a miscarriage of justice when it assumed jurisdiction to hear the motion for the final forfeiture of the funds and rely on the EFCC’s “speculative depositions” against the appellants ‘ clear proof of income acquisition and proof.
The appellants asserted that the high court federal judge issued the final decree of confiscation “without deciding as to whether the appellant had shown sufficient cause which would have warranted it to discharge its earlier interim forfeiture order before proceeding with the suit”.
The appellants further asserted that, while their jurisdiction was still being questioned, the lesser court erred by giving the final forfeiture order.
They also disagreed with the decision of the court to “shift the onus propandi to the appellant to prove not only the sources of their funds but their innocence.”
