Ekweremadu Challenges FG’s Planned Seizure of His Assets

Court adjourns to April 26 to hear application

Alex Enumah such, “an order will enable the government to carry out a thorough investigation into the activities of the respondent in the acquisition of the said properties as it relates to the allegation of a breach of Code of Conduct for Public Officers.”

It said the interim order would lapse as soon as investigation and further inquiry by the Special Presidential Investigation Panel for the Recovery of Public Property is concluded.

It said the respondent might face possible arraignment after investigations.

But at yesterday’s proceedings, the Deputy Senate President informed the court of two applications he had already filed in opposition to the notice of ex parte application filed by the government.

When the matter came up yesterday, counsel to the federal government, Bala Dakum, who held brief for Festus Keyamo (SAN), informed the court that by the nature of an ex-parte application, the respondent was not supposed to be in court not to talk of being heard.

He informed the court of an application he filed seeking leave of court to file a counter affidavit to Ekweremadu’s application seeking to be heard in the ex-parte application.

Since the application was not opposed to by Ekweremadu’s counsel, Adegboyega Awomolo (SAN), the court granted his prayers.

In the counter affidavit filed on April 9, opposing the hearing of Ekweremadu’s application, the government argued that being privy of the notice of ex parte application does not accord the respondent right to be heard in the suit.

He said what happened was that while waiting for the court to fix a date for hearing of the motion, the respondent filed an application, seeking to be heard.

According to Dakum, what the government seeks to do at this stage is to obtain an order of court stopping Ekweremmadu from dissipating the assets in question whilst investigations are ongoing.

The government further averred that the application of the respondent “is a delay tactics to frustrate the substance of this suit as there are reports that the respondent is already hurriedly selling off the assets in question”.

The government’s lawyer further argued that the position of the respondent that granting the ex parte would infringe on his right to fair hearing was misconceived and urged the court to dismiss the application for lacking merit.

Responding, Awomolo told the court that he equally filed two applications on March 26, 2018. The first according to him, is the one praying the court for leave to be heard in the motion ex parte, while the second is challenging the jurisdiction of the court to hear the ex parte on grounds that the applicant is not recognised in law to file the suit.

“The body that brought that motion ex-parte does not exist in law. We are challenging the constitutionality of its existence,” he said.

Awomolo, therefore urged the court to adjourned to a convenient date to take all the applications together.

But Dakum objected, stating that the court should first determine whether the respondent should heard in the suit before taking on other matters.

After listening to counsel in the matter, Justice Binta Nyako, severed the two applications filed by Ekweremadu, and held that the first one should be heard and subsequently adjourned to April 26 for hearing of his application seeking to be heard in opposition to the ex parte application.

The federal government had in the notice of ex parte application sought for “An interim order of this Honourable court temporarily attaching/ forfeiting the properties listed in schedule B hereunder to the federal government of Nigeria pending the conclusion of further inquiry/investigation by the Special Presidential Investigative Panel for the Recovery of Public Property and or possible arraignment of the respondent.

“And for such other orders as the court may deem fit to make in the circumstances of the case.

Some of the grounds on which the application is predicated are that the properties listed in schedule A were the properties declared by the respondent in his asset declaration forms at the Code of Conduct Bureau