Hearing Of Patience Jonathan’s Application On Frozen $15.6m Adjourned To March 13
The Federal High Court in Lagos yesterday adjourned further hearing of the fundamental rights enforcement suit filed by former first lady, Mrs. Patience Jonathan, seeking to recover the $15.591 million frozen by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) till March 6.
The trial judge, Justice Mohammed Idris adjourned the case following requests by counsel, who representing companies allegedly used by a former aide to President Goodluck Jonathan, Waripama-Owei Dudafa to laundered the contentious money.
Mrs. Jonathan in the suit is claiming the sum of $200 million against the EFCC, Skye Bank Plc, a former special assistant to her husband, Waripama-Owei Dudafa and four others for what she described as the inconvenience and embarrass she suffered as a result of the freezing of her accounts.
Also joined in the suit are: Pluto Property and Investment company Ltd, Seagate Property Development and Investment Company Ltd, Transocean Property and investment company Ltd and Globus Integrarted Service Ltd.
It will be recalled that the four companies, which the EFCC claimed was used by Dudafa to launder the $15.591 million dollars, had already pleaded guilty to the offence of money laundering before Justice Babs Kuewumi of the same court.
The sum involved in the criminal case is the same money which Mrs Jonathan is claiming belongs to her as the sole signatory to the accounts of the convicted companies.
She, however, denied ownership of the companies.
At resumed hearing of the matter on Monday, counsel to the former first lady, Ifedayo Adedipe (SAN), informed the court that he had served the relevant documents on all the defence counsel and he was ready to argue his client’s case.
However, counsel for the companies, Jeff Kadiri, who held the brief of Chief Mike Ozekhome (SAN), said he was only just briefed and needed time to file appropriate reply to the suit.
He urged Justice Idris to grant him a short adjournment to enable him file the necessary court papers.
Adedipe said he was not opposed to the application for an adjournment.
Justice Idris consequently adjourned hearing in the case till March 6.
In an affidavit in support of the suit, deposed to by a lawyer, Sammie Somiari, it was averred that on March 22, 2010, Mrs Jonathan had opened five different accounts with Skye bank, with the aid of two officials of the bank, Damola Bolodeoku and Dipo Oshodi.
It was further averred that the account mandate forms were duly completed and signed by her.
According to the deponent, Mrs Jonathan subsequently discovered that apart from one of the accounts that bore her name, the other four accounts were opened in the name of four companies belonging to Dudafa.
He also averred that she also observed that the ATM cards of the said accounts were issued in the names of the companies, adding that she complained to Dudafa who promised to effect the necessary changes.
He said Dipo Oshodi also promised to effect the necessary changes.
Somiari averred further that Mrs Jonathan is not a director, shareholder or participant in these companies and the funds in the said accounts were solely owned and operated by her.
According to the deponent, the Skye bank official, (Oshodi), did not carry out the instructions of the plaintiff to change the name of the said accounts to her name, despite repeated request.
He averred that notwithstanding the refusal of the bank to effect the necessary changes, she had been using the said ATM cards without any interference.
The deponent averred that sometimes in July 2016, Jonathan discovered that the ATM cards were not functioning, and immediately contacted the bank who informed her that a “No debit/freezing order” have been placed on the accounts.
He averred that on further enquiry, the bank informed her that the accounts were frozen on the directive of the EFCC as a result of an ongoing investigation in relation to Dudafa.
The former first lady therefore contended that she was neither arrested nor invited by EFCC prior to the freezing order placed on the accounts and as such the action is unlawful and illegal.
Consequently, she is seeking an order of court, directing the unfreezing of her account forthwith.
She also wants an order restraining the EFCC from taking further steps in relation to the said account pending the determination of the suit.
