The Federal High Court, Abuja Division, on Tuesday, made an order for final forfeiture of a UK property linked to a former Minister of the Federal Capital Territory (FCT), the late Jeremiah Useni, to
Justice Binta Nyako, in a ruling, held that the motion on notice for the final forfeiture of the property moved by counsel for the Code of Conduct Bureau (CCB), Sufyan Ahmad, was meritorious and accordingly granted.
The house is located at No. 79, Randall Avenue, Neasden, London NW2 7SX.
The CCB, in the suit marked: FHC/ABJ/CS/2333/2025, had named the Administrators of the Estate of the late Gen. Jeremiah Useni, the Executors of the Estate of late Gen. Jeremiah Useni and the Property No. 79, Randall Avenue, Neasden, London NW2 7SX as 1st to 3rd respondents respectively.
Ahmad told the court that the property sought to be forfeited is reasonably suspected to have been acquired with proceeds of unlawful activities.
The lawyer, who gave four grounds why the application should be granted, submitted that the court has the inherent as well as the statutory powers to exercise its discretion in the agency’s favour.
He said the provisions of Section 7, 17, 19 and 67 of the Proceeds of Crime (Recovery and Management) Act 2022, and Sections 6 and 44 of the 1999 Constitution (as amended) gave the court the discretionary power.
He said the court granted an interim order of preservation of the said property on November 20, 2025.
The court also directed that the said order be published for persons, authority, whether corporate or otherwise, to indicate interest and file necessary process why the property should not be forfeited to the Federal Government.
Ahmad said the order had been complied with by publishing same in a Tribune newspaper of March 4.
According to him, no persons, authority whether corporate or otherwise indicated interest and or filed any process contesting why the property should not be forfeited to the Federal Government of Nigeria.
The lawyer urged the court to grant their relief.
Hearing in the motion for final forfeiture of the house was, on January 26, stalled due to inability of CCB to effect a proper service of the motion and hearing notice on the respondents.
The lawyer, however, filed a motion ex-parte for substituted service of the court documents and hearing notice on interested person(s) through a newspaper publication which the cover granted.
In the affidavit in support of the motion on notice for final forfeiture deposed to by a CCB’s investigator, Raji Rasaq, he said on November 28, 2025, the court granted an interim preservation order in respect of the property.
He said pursuant to the said order, his office caused a publication to be made in a widely circulated national newspaper inviting any person with interest in the said property to show cause within 14 days why the property should not be forfeited to the Federal Government.
Mr Rasaq said since the publication, no person or entity had come forward to show cause or establish any legitimate interest in the property.
He said that the First-Tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) of the United Kingdom in suit REF/2023/0155 delivered judgment confirming that the late Useni was the true owner of the property, having purchased it under a fictitious name.
The investigator said that the judgment further established that the “alias” used was intended to conceal the identity of the beneficial owner and suppress official documentation.
According to him, the deceased acquired the property during his tenure in public office and the circumstances strongly indicate that the funds used were from unlawful activity.
He said the CCB obtained the remuneration package for political, public and judicial officers from the Revenue Mobilisation, Allocation and Fiscal Commission (RMAFC), the agency of government responsible for determining remuneration for political, public and judicial officers for a net worth analysis of the deceased while in service.
The investigator said a net worth analysis conducted by the Financial Investigation and Forensic Accounting Unit (FIFAU) of the CCB, using the salary scale for political, public and judicial officers as provided by the RMAFC, found out that the deceased declared income at the time was grossly insufficient to account for the acquisition of the property.
“That there is substantial ‘unexplained funds’ gap indicating that funds used for the acquisition must have come from other, undisclosed or undeclared sources.
“That this gap constitutes a strong circumstantial indicator of potential fraud/unreported income or illicit accumulation of wealth.
“That accordingly, the means of acquisition of the London property constitutes proceeds of unlawful activity,” he stated.
Mr Rasaq said his office possesses the asset declaration form of the deceased wherein he declared ownership of the property even though it was purchased under a fictitious name.
“The said form is already annexed as Exhibit B in the earlier application,” he said.
He said there was reasonable ground to believe that the property constituted the proceeds of unlawful activity as indicated by the analysis of FIFAU.
He said it would be in the overriding interest of justice for the court to grant a final forfeiture order in favour of the Federal Government.
Also named in the property dispute is Cgueg Mike Ozekhome, SAN.
The matter, filed at the First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Land Registration, UK, under case number: REF/2023/0155, listed Tali Shani as the applicant and Ozekhome as the respondent.
The property had been claimed by one “Ms Tali Shani” on one hand and Mr Ozekhome on the other.
Mr Ozekhome was said to have claimed that he received the house as a gift from “Mr Tali Shani” in 2021, while lawyers for “Ms Shani” insisted she was the rightful owner.
A witness known as “Mr Tali Shani” had testified in favour of Mr Ozekhome, claiming that he had “Powers of Attorney” over the property and had transferred the property to the respondent (Ozekhome).
Mr Shani asserted ownership of the property from 1993 and claimed he later appointed Mr Useni as his property manager, describing the late Useni as an “elder friend and business partner.”
On the other hand, several documents, including an obituary announcement, NIN card, ECOWAS passport, phone number, etc were tendered by witnesses of Ms Shani to claim ownership of the property.
However, the tribunal found all the documents tendered for Ms Shani to be fake.
The tribunal subsequently dismissed all claims, ruling that neither “Mr” nor “Ms” Shani existed.
Discussion about this post