How EFCC Devalues Properties – Abuja Judge

Justice A.R. Mohammed of the Federal High Court sitting in Abuja has said that the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) is devaluing the worth or value of people’s (suspect’s) properties through delayed forfeiture proceedings.

Mohammed, who currently sits as a vacation judge, shared his opinion on properties the EFCC marks for investigation, when a similar application was brought before him on Tuesday.

The application sought( in suit no. FHC,/ABJ/CS/963/23) for an order of interim attachment/forfeiture against a ten hectares of land in Heartland Estate, Owerri, Imo state.

Though he granted EFCC’s request, the judge first shared his opinion on properties the anti-graft agency marks for investigation.

The judge said where he once lived for ten years, a particular house that was marked for investigation by the EFCC at the time is still carrying the same inscription.

According to the judge, such custody of the property by the anti-graft agency will cause it to depreciate and lose its initial value if and when court action associated with it has been disposed of.

“Each time I am going home from this court, there is a property I see marked ‘EFCC Under Investigation’; for the period that I was in that house, almost ten years, nobody was in that property and it is still carrying the inscription ‘EFCC Under Investigation’.

“So I was saying to my mind, even when the court action or case is concluded, that house will not have its value again,” Mohammed said.

The judge explained that in some proceedings, when a plaintiff has a claim against a ship or owner of a ship or property onboard a ship, they normally come to court and ask the court to arrest the vessel.

He said the court will arrest the vessel pending when the plaintiff provides bank guarantee or insurance bond to secure the plaintiff’s claim.

“On that , the court will release the vessel and say one: continue in business.

“That bank guarantee, it will be equal to the plaintiff’s claim so that at the end of the day, if the plaintiff succeeds, the bank or insurance bond will be asked to pay,” the judge said.

He held that that way, an agency had not detained such vessels (he used as an example) throughout the period of litigation.

The judge advised the EFCC, whose lawyer was in court, to sit down with suspects and agree if the property in contention should be sold in its current market value and kept in an interest yielding bank pending conclusion of the case.

He said when the anti-graft agency takes over a property till the end of a matter, “it will continue to deteriorate, depreciate in value”, and even if the suspect gets discharged and acquitted, he or she won’t get the property “in the same condition and the value would have gone down.”

“Like you can sit with the accused person and say look, we do not know how long the proceedings will take, maybe at the end of the day, if you are discharged and acquitted, you will not find the property in the same value that it was (before it was forfeited), do you agree that let us value the property and sell at its current market value and then put the money in an interest yielding bank account so that at the end of the day, if you succeed and get acquitted, you carry the money and buy another property.

“And if it is a house with tenants, don’t drive them away, let them continue to be paying the rent and that rent will be kept, maybe, under the court’s supervision or control,” the judge advised, urging the counsel to suggest same to her superiors in EFCC, when there is a meeting.