The Court of Appeal in Lagos has reinstated the interim forfeiture of 14 properties linked to former Kogi State Governor, Yahaya Bello, granting victory to the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) in its bid to recover suspected illicit assets.

In a unanimous judgment delivered virtually on Wednesday, Justice Yargata Nimpar, backed by Justices Danlami Senchi and Paul Bassi, ruled that the Federal High Court erred in halting the case based on constitutional immunity granted to a sitting governor under Section 308.

“The trial court erred in striking out the case rather than determining whether or not the properties should be finally forfeited,” Justice Nimpar said.

The properties in question  located in Lagos, Abuja, and Dubai  were seized through an interim order granted by Justice Nicholas Oweibo of the Federal High Court in Lagos. The EFCC claimed the assets were acquired with proceeds of unlawful activity and had sought their forfeiture via an ex parte motion. The court also ordered a public notice, inviting interested parties to contest the forfeiture.

Bello’s legal team challenged the forfeiture, arguing that the properties were bought before he assumed office and could not be tied to state funds. They also invoked Section 308 immunity and cited a restraining order from a Kogi State High Court barring EFCC from probing state accounts. Additionally, they questioned the Federal High Court’s jurisdiction, pointing out that the properties were outside Lagos and that Bello resided in Lokoja.

However, EFCC’s counsel, Rotimi Oyedepo (SAN), maintained that no court had restricted the commission from probing economic crimes. He argued that the properties  including a luxury apartment in Dubai’s iconic Burj Khalifa were reasonably suspected to have been purchased with illicit funds. The agency is also seeking forfeiture of an additional N400 million linked to the case.

Justice Oweibo had previously struck out the case, citing lack of jurisdiction due to Bello’s constitutional immunity. The EFCC appealed, and the appellate court has now overturned that decision.

In its ruling, the Appeal Court dismissed Bello’s objections, held that immunity does not extend to asset preservation, and ordered that the final forfeiture hearing proceed.