EFCC: Patience Jonathan’s $15.5m is a proceed of crime

The Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) has asked the federal high court in Lagos to dismiss a suit by Patience Jonathan, wife of the immediate past president.

According to THE NATION, the commission filed a counter-affidavit to Patience’s suit, maintaining that the $15.5 million, which the former first lady claims belongs to her, is actually “a proceed of crime”.

In the civil suit before Mohammed Idris, the former first lady is claiming that EFCC froze four of her accounts with Skye Bank in the name of four companies.

The companies are: Pluto Property and Investment Company Ltd (represented by Friday Davis), Seagate Property Development and Investment Company Ltd (represented by Agbor Baro), Trans Ocean Property and Investment Company Ltd (represented by Dioghowori Frederick) and Avalon Global Property Development Ltd (represented by Taiwo Ebenezer).

The accounts, she said, have a balance of $15,591,700 (about N5 billion) belonging to her. However, on September 15, the companies pleaded guilty and were convicted for laundering the money.

But the judge refused to order the money’s forfeiture to the federal government, until the conclusion of the trial of the others named in the charge.

EFCC arraigned them with Waripamo Dudafa, a former special adviser on domestic affairs to Jonathan; Amajuoyi Briggs, a lawyer; and Adedamola Bolodeoku, a banker.

Dudafa, Briggs and Bolodeoku pleaded not guilty to the 17-count charge.

In the suit before Justice Idris, Jonathan is seeking an order to de-freeze the accounts and release her money.

Ifedayo Adedipe, her lawyer, said his client amended her processes. He said he also filed a motion to regularise them, which the court granted.

Oyedepo Rotimi, EFCC’s lawyer, said he would also amend his response to the suit.

“Leave will be granted to the respondent (EFCC) to file any amended process,” the judge held.

Rotimi accused the applicant of changing the companies’ address through which the suit was purportedly served on them.

“We are of the opinion that if you want to change the address of a party, it should not be the adversary who will change the address of another party,” he said.

“What we saw was [that] the applicant was changing the address of the other defendants and I don’t think that is tidy.”

The judge adjourned the case to January 18.