Court Orders EFCC to Return 27 Properties to Owners

A Federal High Court in Abuja has directed the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) to release 27 houses previously seized over allegations of unlawful acquisition, ruling that the commission failed to provide sufficient proof linking the assets to illegal activities.

Justice Joyce Abdulmalik delivered the judgement, overturning the interim forfeiture earlier granted and ordering that the properties be returned to their rightful owners without delay.

The affected properties include 26 homes belonging to **James Ikechukwu Okwete** and his company, **Jamec West African Limited**, as well as one property owned by **Adebukunola Iyabode Oladapo**, located at House No. 12, Fandriana Close, Wuse 2, Abuja.

The legal dispute arose after the EFCC obtained an ex parte order allowing temporary confiscation of the homes pending a final determination on forfeiture. The property owners challenged the seizure, providing documentation to prove legitimate acquisition and ownership.

After evaluating submissions from both sides, the court found the commission’s evidence insufficient to establish that the houses were derived from criminal proceeds. Justice Abdulmalik emphasized that the burden of proof rests with the agency making allegations and that significant actions such as property seizure must be supported by verifiable evidence rather than assumptions.

Legal observers noted that the ruling reinforces due process and establishes a precedent for future asset forfeiture cases.

While anti-corruption agencies play a vital role in preventing economic crimes, experts said their actions must uphold fairness, legality, and respect for private property rights.

The court’s directive ensures immediate restoration of full access to the properties and all relevant ownership documents, as well as cancellation of previous restrictions imposed under the interim order.

The EFCC, which initiated the forfeiture process as part of its statutory responsibilities, has not yet responded formally to the ruling.

This decision is expected to strengthen judicial oversight over seizure and forfeiture matters, encourage other property owners who feel wrongly targeted to pursue legal remedies, and remind enforcement agencies that strong, verifiable evidence is essential before such drastic measures are sanctioned by the courts.