The Court of Appeal in Lagos has nullified a final forfeiture order against assets linked to former Central Bank of Nigeria Governor, Godwin Emefiele, returning the case for a fresh trial. In a split decision issued on April 9, 2025, the appellate court set aside the lower court’s judgment and directed that the matter be reheard at the lower court level.

Previously, on November 1, 2024, the Federal High Court in Lagos ruled in favour of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC), granting a final forfeiture of several properties and assets believed to have been acquired with illicit funds. These included luxurious homes in Lagos, undeveloped land in Ikoyi, an industrial complex in Delta State, and several other properties, along with $2.045 million and share certificates in Queensdorf Global Fund Limited.

The EFCC argued that these assets were suspiciously acquired with proceeds from unlawful activities. Dissatisfied with the decision, Emefiele, represented by a team led by SAN Olalekan Ojo, appealed, raising five key issues, including whether the lower court properly evaluated evidence and whether the properties truly belonged to him.

EFCC’s counsel contended that Emefiele failed to prove how he legitimately acquired the assets, noting that the properties were registered in company names distinct from him and his wife, and that he did not declare these assets to the Code of Conduct Bureau.

In its judgment, the Court of Appeal’s Justice Abdulazeez Anka expressed doubt about the sufficiency of the evidence used in the original forfeiture order. He highlighted that the funds Emefiele claimed as his earnings—such as his severance package, bank shares, and salary—could indeed have financed the properties, asserting that further oral and documentary evidence was needed.

Consequently, the court set aside the forfeiture of the properties, while affirming the forfeiture of the $2,045,000, which it found undisputed. The case was remitted for a new hearing, allowing both sides to present fresh evidence and cross-examine witnesses.

Justices Mohammed Mustapha and Danlami Senchi largely agreed with the decision to overturn the forfeiture, emphasising that Emefiele’s earnings appeared sufficient to purchase the properties and that the initial evidence was insufficient to prove illicit acquisition. Justice Senchi, however, dissenting, argued that the evidence against Emefiele was clear and that calling for oral testimony was unnecessary.

This ruling underscores the complexities of asset forfeiture cases and the importance of thorough evidence evaluation. The case’s remitter back to the lower court signals ongoing legal proceedings as Emefiele seeks to clear his name and retain his assets.