LAGOS — In yet another episode highlighting the murky waters of Nigeria’s anti-corruption enforcement, the Federal High Court in Lagos has ordered the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) to vacate the premises of Goodwill Private Schools Limited, Ikorodu. The ruling, handed down by Justice O.A. Owoeye on Monday, raises serious questions about the integrity of judicial processes and the apparent weaponization of anti-graft laws.
The court’s order comes in response to a motion filed by the school’s legal team, led by seasoned lawyer Dr. Benson Enikuomehin and five other advocates. Dr. Enikuomehin dismantled the EFCC’s case piece by piece, arguing that the agency’s forfeiture proceedings blatantly violated Section 17 of the Advance Fee Fraud Act, 2006—a section that strictly governs non-conviction-based forfeiture.
Shockingly, according to the defense, the EFCC not only secured a forfeiture order without a criminal conviction, but allegedly handed the seized school property to a private individual, one Mrs. Olabisi Olaiya, under the guise of acting on behalf of the Federal Government. Such a move, if true, constitutes a troubling departure from due process and raises questions of bias, illegality, and abuse of office within the Commission.
More troubling is the procedural manner in which the EFCC obtained its order. Dr. Enikuomehin described the EFCC’s ex parte application—a legal move often made without notifying the other party—as a “procedural ambush.” He stressed that the law demands a motion on notice for final forfeiture, where the accused party is given a fair chance to defend itself. What transpired, he argued, was not a legal misstep but a fatal flaw—rendering the entire process null and void ab initio.
Equally disconcerting is the fact that the EFCC allegedly predicated its actions on what appears to be a civil dispute between Goodwill Private Schools and First City Monument Bank (FCMB). Such contractual disagreements, however complex, hardly fall under the purview of criminal activity or fraudulent enrichment. The lack of any proven unlawful proceeds further dismantles the EFCC’s narrative.
In a response that failed to address the core legal violations raised, EFCC counsel Hannatu Umar Kofarnaisa instead argued that the court is “functus officio”—a legal term meaning the court has already ruled and cannot revisit the matter. Her insistence that the school’s refusal to vacate for Mrs. Olaiya amounted to “proceeds of crime” appears more rhetorical than legally sound, especially in the absence of a valid criminal judgment or clear evidence of wrongdoing.
The judge, perhaps acknowledging the legal quagmire, ordered the EFCC to vacate the school premises pending a final determination of the case. However, the court’s initial willingness to entertain and approve such a controversial forfeiture application ex parte in the first place deserves its own scrutiny. How did such a legally flimsy order escape judicial oversight in a country already marred by a distrust of its institutions?
This incident reflects a broader crisis in Nigeria’s legal system—one in which due process is too often sacrificed on the altar of political expediency and regulatory overreach. It also underscores the urgent need to reform the EFCC’s operations and hold both law enforcement agencies and the judiciary accountable to the rule of law.
The date for the final ruling is yet to be communicated, but the implications of this legal drama extend far beyond the school walls of Ikorodu. At stake is the credibility of Nigeria’s anti-corruption crusade and the sanctity of justice in a nation that can no longer afford the luxury of institutional recklessness.
Reference
Court Orders EFCC Out of School Amid Controversial Forfeiture Saga