The Economic and Financial Crimes Commission has secured the final forfeiture of two properties linked to a senior staff member of the Federal Inland Revenue Service, Aminu Sidi Garunbabba to the Federal Government.
The forfeiture was granted on Thursday, April 3, 2025, by Justice Obiora Egwuatu of the Federal High Court in Abuja.
The affected properties include a four-bedroom terrace masonite with a boys’ quarter located at Barumark Groove Estate, Plot 667 Cadastral Zone BO3, Wuye District, Abuja, and another property situated at No. 5 Lodge Road, Kano State.
The forfeiture order follows an ex-parte motion filed by the EFCC through its counsel, Ekele Iheanacho, SAN, on March 16, 2022.
A statement on Friday by the EFCC’s Head of Media and Publicity, Dele Oyewale said the motion was brought under Section 44(2) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria and Section 17 of the Advance Fee Fraud and Other Related Offences Act, No. 14, 2006.
Oyewale said the court had earlier issued an interim forfeiture order on February 16, 2022, and directed that the order be published in a national newspaper to allow any interested party to show cause why the properties should not be permanently forfeited.
“Moving the motion for the final forfeiture order at Thursday’s sitting, the prosecution counsel informed the court that the property was reasonably suspected to have been acquired with proceeds of unlawful activities.
“However, the defence counsel in a preliminary objection, raised concerns that a public officer cannot be investigated and prosecuted when an ongoing administrative disciplinary action is yet to be concluded,” Oyewale said.
He noted that Justice Egwatu after listening to the submissions of the counsel dismissed the objection and granted the request of the prosecution for a final forfeiture.
“This case targets properties suspected to be proceeds of crime, the two cases are different. A criminal case requires proving beyond reasonable doubt while in this case, only a suspicion suffices. Both actions can go on simultaneously and one cannot abate the other. The parties are different, the target in both cases are different, one is proved beyond reasonable doubt and the other is reasonable suspicion. The issues are also different, a person cannot be allowed to benefit from illegitimate acts. The respondent failed to show any reasonable cause that the funds used in purchasing the property is from his legitimate earnings, so the request for final forfeiture is granted,” Oyewale quoted the judge as saying.