The Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) has successfully secured the final forfeiture of two properties linked to Aminu Sidi Garunbabba, a senior staff member of the Federal Inland Revenue Service (FIRS), to the Federal Government. The forfeiture was granted on Thursday, April 3, 2025, by Justice Obiora Egwuatu of the Federal High Court in Abuja.
The properties involved include a four-bedroom terrace house with a boys’ quarter at Barumark Groove Estate, Plot 667 Cadastral Zone BO3, Wuye District, Abuja, and another property located at No. 5 Lodge Road, Kano State. The forfeiture followed an ex-parte motion filed by the EFCC on March 16, 2022, through its counsel, Ekele Iheanacho, SAN.
In a statement released on Friday, the EFCC’s Head of Media and Publicity, Dele Oyewale, confirmed that the motion was brought under Section 44(2) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria and Section 17 of the Advance Fee Fraud and Other Related Offences Act, No. 14, 2006. Oyewale further stated that an interim forfeiture order was issued by the court on February 16, 2022, and published in a national newspaper, allowing interested parties to show cause why the properties should not be permanently forfeited.
During the hearing for the final forfeiture order on Thursday, the prosecution argued that the properties were reasonably suspected to have been acquired with proceeds from illegal activities. However, the defense raised a preliminary objection, arguing that a public officer could not be investigated or prosecuted before the conclusion of any ongoing administrative disciplinary actions.
Justice Egwatu, after considering the arguments from both sides, dismissed the defense’s objection and granted the final forfeiture. The judge explained that the case was concerned with properties suspected to be proceeds of crime, which is different from a criminal trial that requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt. In this case, only reasonable suspicion was needed to proceed. He further clarified that both the criminal case and the forfeiture proceedings could run simultaneously without one affecting the other.
The judge concluded that the respondent had failed to provide evidence showing that the funds used to purchase the properties were derived from legitimate sources. As a result, Justice Egwatu granted the request for final forfeiture of the properties.