Court Adjourns Final Forfeiture Suit Against Patience Jonathan

A suit filed by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) against a former first lady, Patience Jonathan has been adjourned until May 24.

The EFCC in the suit seeks final forfeiture of about $8.4 million and N7.4billion found in accounts linked to Jonathan.

A federal high court in Lagos, presided by Justice Mojisola Olatoregun adjourned the suit for the continuation of affidavit evidence after defence counsel informed the court that it required time to look at a counter affidavit served on it by the EFCC.

The News Agency of Nigeria (NAN) reports that the EFCC had secured an interim order for forfeiture of the sums on April 20, 2018, before Mrs Olatoregun, following a motion exparte.

It joined as respondents: Patience Jonathan, Globus Integrated Services Ltd, Finchley Top Homes Ltd., Am-Pm Global Network Ltd, Pagmat Oil and Gas Ltd and Magel Resort Ltd and Esther Oba.

Meanwhile, defence counsel, Ifedayo Adedipe (SAN), Mike Ozekhome (SAN), and Ige Asemudara, had respectively moved their processes in opposition to the motion for final forfeiture.

On January 15, the court had admitted electronic evidence presented by respondent counsel, which depicted video exhibits showing various business outfits of Finchley Top Homes Ltd. and Magel Resort Ltd.

In a judgment delivered on February 28, the court had held that it finds the affidavit evidence conflicting, adding that same can only be resolved by oral evidence of parties.

At the last adjourned date, an EFCC witness, Orji Chukwuma, had concluded evidence before the court, while the court had adjourned for continuation of evidence.

When the case was called on Wednesday, Mr Oyedepo informed the court that he filed a counter affidavit which he had served on the defence, adding that he was ready to proceed.

READ ALSO: Law Has Granted Married Women To Either Claim Their Father Or Husband Indigeneship

Meanwhile, defence counsel, Mr Ozekhome (SAN), confirmed service of the counter affidavit but added that there were new facts deposed in same, which he required time to look and respond to.

He, therefore, sought an adjournment which was not opposed by other counsel.

The court consequently adjourned until May 24 for the continuation of trial.

Evidence will now continue on the next adjourned date.

(NAN)

Loading...
Loading...
Loading...
%d bloggers like this: