By Adenike Lawal
In a major legal twist, the Court of Appeal in Lagos has overturned the final forfeiture order against several properties and assets linked to former Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN), Governor, Godwin Emefiele.
In a two-to-one majority decision delivered on April 9, 2025, the appellate court set aside the Federal High Court’s November 1, 2024 ruling, ordering a fresh hearing before a different judge.
The Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC), had secured the original forfeiture, alleging that Emefiele could not legitimately account for the acquisition of luxury properties in Lagos and Delta States-including multiple duplexes in Ikoyi and Lekki, an industrial complex in Agbor, undeveloped lands, $2,045,000 in cash, and shares in Queensdorf Global Fund Limited.
EFCC counsel, Rotimi Oyedepo (SAN), claimed many of the assets were registered under corporate entities unrelated to Emefiele, none of which contested the forfeiture.
However, Emefiele, through his legal team led by Olalekan Ojo (SAN), filed an appeal (CA/LAG/CV/1051/24), arguing that the trial judge failed to adequately consider his affidavit evidence and that he had sufficient financial capacity to acquire the assets legally, based on earnings from his time at Zenith Bank and as CBN Governor.
Delivering the lead judgment, Justice Abdulazeez Anka agreed, noting that the conflicting claims and affidavit evidence warranted deeper judicial scrutiny, including oral testimonies and cross-examinations—steps the trial court omitted.
He ordered a fresh trial at the Federal High Court before a different judge.
Justice Mohammed Mustapha concurred, emphasizing that Emefiele’s income history was sufficient to support the asset acquisitions.
He also noted that properties acquired post-2020 could not be judged by Code of Conduct Bureau declarations made in 2014 and 2019.
Mustapha further argued that the pending criminal proceedings against Emefiele should ideally take precedence over the civil forfeiture case.
In a dissenting opinion, however, Justice Danlami Senchi maintained that there was no material conflict in the evidence warranting a retrial.
He argued that since the corporate owners of the assets did not challenge the forfeiture, Emefiele lacked the legal standing to do so. He dismissed the appeal in its entirety.
While the Court of Appeal upheld the forfeiture of $2,045,000 (which Emefiele did not contest), it vacated the ruling on the properties and other assets, paving the way for both parties to present full evidence in a new trial.
The ruling marks a significant procedural victory for Emefiele, but the case is far from over as it returns to the Federal High Court for a full evidentiary hearing.
