MARHABA EVENT PLACE LIMITED & ORS V. ECONOMIC AND FINANCIAL CRIMES COMMISSION & ORS (2024)

Background

This appeal arose from the final forfeiture of twenty-four properties associated with Marhaba Event Place Limited, Aflac Plastics Limited and Atlasfield Integrated Limited. The properties included filling stations, liquefied petroleum gas facilities, plazas, event centres, undeveloped plots, a block industry, a corporate headquarters, a truck assembly facility, a polythene factory and substantial landholdings in Kano, Kaduna and Cross River States. The Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) commenced proceedings at the Federal High Court, Abuja, under section 17 of the Advance Fee Fraud and Other Fraud Related Offences Act 2006. It alleged that the properties were reasonably suspected to be proceeds of unlawful activity.

On 13 May 2020, the Federal High Court granted an interim forfeiture order and directed publication of the order, inviting persons who claimed an interest in the assets to show cause why the order should not be made final. The appellants filed affidavits and documentary exhibits, including certificates of occupancy, deeds of assignment, sale agreements, incorporation documents, receipts and other title-related materials. They asserted that the properties had been acquired for their businesses by late Major-General Maude Aminu Kano, who had been chairman of the companies. They denied involvement in criminal activity and maintained that the assets were legitimately acquired.

The EFCC filed counter-affidavits and relied, among other materials, on statements made by Godwin Akpovwa and Alhaji Abdullahi Tanimu Inusa, the vice-chairman of the appellant companies. Those statements indicated that General Maude Aminu Kano supplied funds, often in cash and sometimes in foreign currency, for the acquisition of the properties. The Federal High Court held that the appellants had failed to explain the lawful source of the acquisition funds and consequently made the interim forfeiture order final on 14 February 2022. The appellants appealed.

Issue

The central issue was whether, having regard to the affidavit and documentary evidence before the trial court, the appellants had shown cause why the properties should not be finally forfeited and whether the trial judge properly evaluated the evidence before making the final forfeiture order.

Ratio Decidendi

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal and affirmed the decision of the Federal High Court. It held that civil forfeiture under section 17 of the Advance Fee Fraud and Other Fraud Related Offences Act is a non-conviction-based proceeding directed against property or proceeds of unlawful activity, rather than against the personal guilt of a defendant. It is an action in rem, not in personam. Therefore, the prosecution is not required first to secure a criminal conviction beyond reasonable doubt before the property can be forfeited.

The court explained that the process begins with an ex parte application for interim forfeiture. Once the court is reasonably satisfied, on affidavit evidence, that the property is unclaimed or reasonably suspected to be proceeds of unlawful activity, it may grant an interim order and direct publication of a notice to show cause. At that stage, the evidential burden shifts to the person claiming the property. That person must do more than establish ownership or produce title documents; he must provide credible evidence showing that the funds used to acquire the property came from legitimate sources.

The court distinguished evidence of ownership from evidence of lawful acquisition. Certificates of occupancy, deeds of assignment, sale agreements and incorporation documents demonstrated how the assets were held or invested, but did not establish how the purchase money was obtained. The appellants did not provide bank statements, business records, identifiable transactions, income details or other specific evidence showing that either the companies or General Maude Aminu Kano possessed legitimate resources sufficient to acquire properties valued in the billions of naira.

Court Findings

The Court of Appeal found that the appellants’ own evidence undermined their case. Their affidavits stated that General Maude Aminu Kano financed and acquired the properties for the corporate appellants. The evidence of Alhaji Tanimu Inusa further disclosed that substantial sums were paid in cash, including payments of approximately N75 million, N150 million and N170 million in connection with different properties. The court held that these facts permitted the trial court to infer a breach of section 1 of the Money Laundering (Prohibition) Act 2011, which restricted cash payments exceeding N5 million for individuals and N10 million for corporate bodies, except through financial institutions.

The court rejected the argument that the appellants had not expressly admitted the offence of money laundering. A court may draw reasonable inferences from established facts and documents. Admissions need not use a particular legal label. The disclosure of large cash transactions, coupled with the absence of supporting bank records and a failure to identify the legitimate source of the funds, was sufficient to support the trial court’s conclusion.

The court also held that a general assertion that the deceased had qualifications, contacts, consultancy activities, business interests and oil-and-gas ventures was inadequate. The appellants needed to identify particular businesses or transactions, state the income generated and connect those legitimate earnings to the purchase of particular properties. Their failure to do so meant that the suspicion supporting the interim order was not displaced.

Conclusion

The appeal was dismissed for lack of merit. The Court of Appeal affirmed the Federal High Court judgment in suit No. FHC/ABJ/CS/468/2020, which finally forfeited the twenty-four properties to the Federal Government of Nigeria. No order as to costs was made.

Significance

The decision confirms the stringent evidential obligation placed on claimants in Nigerian civil-forfeiture proceedings. Ownership alone does not defeat an allegation that property represents proceeds of unlawful activity. Once an interim forfeiture order is properly made and published, the claimant must affirmatively explain the lawful origin of the acquisition funds with specific, credible and verifiable evidence. The case also illustrates that courts may infer illegality from admitted financial facts, including substantial cash payments exceeding statutory limits, even where the parties do not expressly describe those facts as money laundering.