In the Supreme Court of Nigeria Holden at Abuja On Friday, the 17th day of July, 2026 Before their Lordships Ibrahim Mohammed Musa Saulawa Tijjani Abubakar Emmanuel Akomaye Agim Obande Festus Ogbuinya Habeeb Adewale Olumuyiwa Abiru Justices, Supreme Court SC/CV/644/2025 Between Economic and Financial Crimes Commission Appellant And Godwin Emefiele Respondent (Lead Judgement delivered by Honourable Ibrahim Mohammed Musa Saulawa, JSC) Facts The Appellant, a Nigerian law enforcement agency, received “credible intelligence” to the effect that the Respondent, while serving as Governor of the Central Bank of Nigeria, acquired numerous properties reasonably suspected to have been illicitly acquired. Further to the intelligence report, the Appellant discovered a number of properties and accordingly, commenced a non-conviction based forfeiture proceedings under Section 17 of the Advanced Fee Fraud and Other Related Offences Act, 2006 at the Federal High Court, Lagos. The trial court delivered a ruling granting an interim order of forfeiture of the properties in question listed as Schedule A attached to the affidavit in support of the motion ex-parte, and directed the Appellant to give notice of the interim forfeiture by publication in any of the specified widely circulated national dailies. Further to the publication, the Respondent filed a motion for stay of proceedings and an affidavit to show cause. A counter- affidavit and further affidavit were filed thereafter. During the proceedings, the Appellant filed a motion on notice praying for a final forfeiture of the properties, and a counter-affidavit to the Respondent’s application to show cause. Upon conclusion of the substantive motion on notice, the trial court delivered its final judgement, making an order for the final forfeiture to the Federal Government of Nigeria, of all the properties contained in Schedule A, which properties are reasonably suspected to have been acquired with proceeds of unlawful activities. The Respondent, who was dissatisfied with the judgement, appealed to the Court of Appeal, which court, by its majority decision, allowed the appeal in part, set aside the final forfeiture with a directive that the parties be given opportunity to call oral evidence. The court thereby ordered that the case be remitted to the Chief Judge for re-assignment to another Judge of the Federal High Court for a re-hearing. Expectedly, the Appellant appealed the decision to the Supreme Court. Issues for Determination The Supreme Court adopted the issues formulated by the Appellant in its determination of the appeal: 1. Having regard to the clear provision of Section 17 of the Advance Fee Fraud and Other Related Offences Act, 2006 and the decision of this Honourable Court in Jonathan v FRN (2019) LPELR-46944(SC), whether Their Lordships of the court below were right in holding that the Respondent may be the direct and true beneficiary of the forfeited properties when the Respondent failed to substantiate his claim of legitimate earnings, failed to demonstrate how his legitimate earnings were utilised to purchase those properties, and failed to establish any link between himself and the companies in whose names the properties were purchased, especially when none of those companies challenged the interim forfeiture order. 2. Whether Their Lordships of the court below were right when they relied on the decision of this Honourable Court in Kotoye v Saraki, to hold that constructive or resulting trusts were created in favour of the Respondent in respect of properties reasonably suspected to have been acquired with the proceeds of crime and, in spite of the fact that the Respondent neither pleaded the equitable defence, nor was the issue which was never canvassed at the trial court raised, with the leave of the court below. 3. Whether Their Lordships of the court below were right in directing that the proceedings founded on Section 17 of the Advance Fee Fraud and Other Related Offences Act, 2006 be converted to a plenary trial with the calling of oral evidence by the parties, when there was no conflict to be resolved by oral evidence and in a generis non-criminal based asset forfeiture proceedings, which, by law, is based on affidavit evidence only. 4. Whether Their Lordships of the court below erred in law when they held that the Appellant did not controvert the fact that the Respondent earned such funds as indicated in this affidavit which was supported by the
Don't miss out on breaking stories and in-depth articles.
