The Supreme Court has affirmed the final forfeiture of properties and $2.045m linked to Godwin Emefiele, former governor of Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN), to the federal government.
In a unanimous judgment delivered on Friday, the apex court overturned the decision of the court of appeal in Lagos, which had nullified the forfeiture order.
The court held that the court of appeal erred when it overturned the forfeiture order and directed that the matter be reheard by the trial court.
On November 1, 2024, Deinde Dipeolu, judge of a federal high court in Lagos, ordered the permanent forfeiture of monies (including $2.045 million), seven choice landed properties and the two share certificates of Queensdorf Global Fund Limited Trust belonging to Emefiele, to the federal government.
The assets were said to be reasonably suspected to have been acquired with proceeds of unlawful activities.
The forfeited properties include two fully detached duplexes of identical structures situated at No. 17b Hakeem Odumosu street, Lekki Phase 1, Lagos; an undeveloped land, measuring 1919.592 sqm with Survey Plan No. DS/LS/340 at Oyinkan Abayomi drive (formerly Queens drive), Ikoyi, Lagos; a bungalow at No. 65a Oyinkan Abayomi drive (formerly Queens drive), Ikoyi, Lagos and a four-bedroom duplex at 12a Probyn road, Ikoyi.
Others are an industrial complex under construction on 22 plots of land in Agbor, Delta state; eight units of an detached apartment on a plot measuring 2457.60sqm at No. 8a Adekunle Lawal road, Ikoyi, and a duplex together with all its appurtenances on a plot of land measuring 2217.87sqm at 2a Bank Road, Ikoyi, Lagos.
In June 2025, the court of appeal in Lagos overturned the final forfeiture order issued on assets owned by Emefiele.
Two of the three-member panel of justices of the appellate court set aside the trial court’s judgment and ordered a retrial of the case at the lower court.
In the judgment delivered by Abdulazeez Anka, the court held that it was convinced that the legitimate earnings of Emefiele could acquire the properties.
Anka, however, noted that the appellant, did not contest the forfeiture of the $2,045,000 forfeited to the federal government.
The judge ruled that the money should be forfeited to the federal government.
