The Federal High Court sitting in Abuja in Suit No: FHC/ABJ/CS/1197/2024 has set aside an Interim Order of Forfeiture made on the 27th August, 2024 against some Properties linked to Alhaji Abubakar Ismaila Isa Funtua.
The judge, Honourable Justice Emeka Nwite granted the earlier Interim Order pursuant to an Ex-parte Application made by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC), for an Order of Interim forfeiture of properties (in rem) without conviction.
Alhaji Abubakar Ismaila Isa Funtua who has interest in the properties-subject of the Interim Order, through his legal team led by Femi Atteh, SAN, filed an Affidavit to show Cause why final Forfeiture Order should not be granted and an Application to set aside the Interim Order granted on the 27th August, 2024.
Justice Nwite agreed with the submissions of Funtua’s legal team led by Femi Atteh, SAN that the EFCC “concealed, suppressed materials facts” and failed to show that the properties were proceeds of crime or from unlawful activities.
The Judge held: “That an order is hereby made that the properties (1) Plot 467 Cadastral Zone, Durumi District, Federal Capital Territory, Abuja; (2) MH 401, Maitama Heights, Plot 47, Maitama District, Abuja; and (3) MH 601, Maitama Heights, Plot 47, Maitama District, Abuja are not acquired from proceeds of crime or from unlawful activities.
“That the application for final forfeiture is hereby refused.”
Justice Nwite knocked the EFCC for acting beyond its powers.
He said:: “It is not the duty of the Applicant/Respondent (EFCC) to enforce loan transaction that went sour or subtly use its statutory powers to ensure adherence to the loan contract.
“Additionally, the averment by the Applicant/Respondent at paragraph 9 of their Counter Affidavit to the Affidavit to Show Cause that the Respondent/Applicant and Teleology Nigeria Limited embezzled depositor’s funds loaned to them without collateral by conniving with Keystone Bank officials is not only laughable but a desperate attempt at making an act a crime where none exists”.
“The question that agitates the mind of the court is: “was the loan given to the Respondent/Applicant with the understanding that it was depositors’ money or was the loan given the Respondent/Applicant as money belonging to Keystone Bank Limited?
“To answer this question, the law is that money deposited in bank does not legally remain the money of the depositor. Once deposited, ownership of the money passes to the bank, and the bank becomes a debtor, while the customer (depositor) becomes a creditor. Therefore, when a bank grants a loan, it is lending its own money even though those funds were sourced from deposits made by customers.”
Justice Nwite held that the loan issue had earlier been resolved.
He stated: “Lastly, the filing of this instant application is an attempt to subject the Respondent/Applicant (Isa Funtua) to double jeopardy.
“Keystone Bank Limited had gotten judgment in its favour for the loan granted to the Respondent/Applicant, and now the Applicant/Respondent is seeking to recover the properties in dispute in respect of that same loan.
“ I sincerely do not want to make the inference from the circumstances of this case that the Applicant/Respondent is trying to enforce the judgment of this court through the back door. “Now, the Applicant/ Respondent is in this court seeking to forfeit the properties in dispute on the allegation that the properties were bought using the loans granted by Keystone Bank Limited for personal use and that same were not secured.
“It must be stated right from the outset that loan transactions are between parties and it is those parties that have the right to seek the enforcement of that loan transactions.
“The Respondent/Applicant (EFCC) is/was not a party to the loan transactions, deed of debenture or deed of charge.
“It had no right to pursue the course of Keystone Bank Limited by stylishly trying to recover the loans for Keystone Bank Limited under the pretext that the Respondent/Applicant acquired the properties through unlawful activities/proceeds of crime by virtue of Section 17 of the AFA.
“The Applicant/Respondent (EFCC) has been warned severally by this court and the Appellate courts that are not debt recovery agency.” “it is not for the Applicant/Respondent (EFCC) to suddenly wear a cloak of a guardian angel or commercial messiah or a commercial midwife to rescue the Bank from the consequences of its own negligence”.
The judge also slammed EFCC for failing to disclose the existence of other related cases on the matter.
“The failure on the part of the Applicant/Respondent to disclose the existence of Suit Nos.: FHC/ABJ/CS/297/2023 and the FHC/ABJ/CS/1971/2024 merely because it was not a party cannot hold water in the circumstance of this case.
“The Applicant/Respondent failed to carry out its responsibility by conducting due diligence assuming that it was not aware of these material facts is fatal to this application. However, I am not inclined to believe that the Applicant/Respondent was not aware of this material fact merely because it was not a party to the suit. The Applicant/Respondent (EFCC) clearly concealed this fact from the court because it knew that if the court was aware of the two Suits particularly FHC/L/CS/297/2023 which is pending at the Court of Appeal, it would not have made the order of interim forfeiture”.
“On the whole, I am of the humble view that the Respondent/Applicant has shown that the properties in dispute were not gotten from an unlawful activity or from proceeds of crime. I so hold.
“In view of the above findings, this court finds that the Applicant/Respondent concealed, suppressed material facts and failed to show that the properties were got from an unlawful activities or from proceeds of crime.”
This was not the first time Isa Funtua would floor EFCC in a court case.
The High Court of the Federal Capital Territory had recently slammed N2million general damages against the EFCC for infringing upon the rights of this Businessman.
Justice Aminu Abdullahi, on May 21,2025, declared Isa Funtua’s arrest, interrogation and continued threat to arrest and detain him without informing him in writing of the allegation against him within 24 hours as unconstitutional.
He held that the commission violated the Applicant’s fundamental rights as guaranteed by Section 35(3) of the 1999 Constitution (as amended).
The Judge restrained the Defendants and their agents “from violating the constitutional rights of the claimant by further arresting or threatening to arrest, detain and/or arraign the claimant without complying with the provision of Section 35 (3) of the 1999 Constitution (As Amended)”.
EFCC, its Chairman Ola Olukoyede and Head of AMCON Desk at EFCC, Mr Bawa Kaltungo, were the defendants.
The Claimant had prayed the court to determine whether EFCC’s failure to inform him in writing of the facts that gave rise to the allegations against him for which he was arrested is a breach of his rights.
He sought a declaration restraining the defendants or their agents from further arresting or threatening to arrest him without complying with the provision of Section 35(3) of the 1999 Constitution.
Isa sought N100million general damages from the commission for infringing on his rights.
The Claimant stated that on February 2, 2024, while in the United Kingdom for medical treatment, he received a letter of invitation dated January 31, 2024.
He said he cut short his medical treatment to honour the invitation.
During interrogation, he demanded to know the petition or allegation against him, but the officers refused to inform him, only telling him they were acting on “orders from above”.
In another judgment by Justice M.O Olajuwon, Federal High Court in Abuja on July 3, 2024, discharged an ex-parte order made on May 7, 2024 empowering the EFCC to instruct the managing directors of banks to stop all outward payment, operation or transactions on accounts linked to Isa.
Court Sets Aside Forfeiture Order Against Businessman, Isa
