Court Fixes Jan. 19 To Rule On Union Bank Application On Ikoyigate
Justice Saliu Seidu of the Federal High Court in Lagos on Wednesday fixed January 19 for ruling on an application filed by Union Bank of Nigeria Plc, challenging the permanent forfeiture of the Ikoyi property, where the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) discovered the sums of $43,449,947, £27,800 and N23,218,000 to the federal government.
Justice Seidu fixed the date after the counsel to the bank, Ajibola Aribisala (SAN) and that of the EFCC, Rotimi Oyedepo argued and adopted their written application.
In the application, Union Bank argued that due to the breach of the agreement not to use the flat for any illegal activity, the bank is entitled to nullify the sale of the flat especially as the legal title of Chobe Ventures to the property is yet to be completed.
But Oyedepo had maintained that the funds used to acquire the property by Mrs. Oke, belong to the Federal Government but was fraudulently converted to the use of one Chobe Ventures which was used to acquire the property.
The property, Flat 7B Osborne Towers, Ikoyi, Lagos, was linked by the EFCC to the dismissed Director General of the National Intelligence Agency, Ambassador Ayo Oke and his wife, Mrs. Folashade Oke.
Justice Seidu had, on November 11, ordered the temporary forfeiture of the property to the federal government while he also gave any interested party 14 days to come before the court to show cause why the property should not be permanently forfeited.
In the affidavit attached to the application, Aribisala argued that the flat in question forms part of the building which originally belongs to the former PDP Chairman, Adamu Muazu.
He said Muazu was said to have mortgaged the property to Union Bank in order to secure a loan granted by the bank to Tripple A Properties & Investment Ltd.
Tripple A is believed to be owned by Muazu.
Union Bank further maintained the tenure of the loan has expired and neither Mr. Muazu nor the company has liquidated same, a situation which it says has vested the property in the bank.
In order to liquidate the debt, Union bank says flat 7b sought to be forfeited to the Federal Government was then sold to Chobe Ventures and by virtue of a deed of assignment, the company amongst other things agreed “not to use the premises or any part of it for any immoral or illegal trade or business…”
The EFCC had previously told the court that Chobe Ventures acquired the flat for N360m and its directors are listed as Mrs. Folashade Oke and Mr. Ayodele Oke Jnr, the wife and son of the dismissed Director General of the NIA, Ambassador Ayo Oke.
Following the breach of the agreement not to use the flat for any illegal activity, Union Bank claims it is entitled to nullify the sale of the flat especially as the legal title of Chobe Ventures to the property is yet to be completed.
The bank has also denied knowledge of the money stashed in the flat and maintains that it only became aware after the discovery was published in the media.
Union bank therefore wants Justice Saliu Seidu to decline making the permanent order of forfeiture, and discharge the interim order of forfeiture made on the ninth of November.
The bank says its rights and interest in the whole property will be severely jeopardized if flat 7b is severed from the rest of the property and forfeited to the Federal Government.
But in its response to the Bank, the EFCC said that Union Bank, having received sufficient consideration for the property, has transferred all its interests to Chobe Ventures and cannot interfere with the forfeiture of the flat reasonably suspected to have been acquired with proceeds of unlawful activities.
The Commission also says that the Bank lacks the capacity to challenge the forfeiture as its interest in the property cannot be above the collective rights of the Federal Republic of Nigeria.
The EFCC insists that by laying claims to the property, Union Bank wants to take both the funds of the Federal Government reasonably suspected to have been converted to the use of Chobe Ventures as well as retain its proprietary interest in the property sought to be forfeited.
