The Court of Appeal sitting in Lagos has reinstated an interim order of forfeiture on 14 high-value properties linked to former Kogi State Governor, Yahaya Bello, overturning an earlier ruling by the Federal High Court that had set the order aside.

In a judgment delivered via virtual proceedings on Wednesday, a three-member panel led by Justice Yargata Nimpar—with Justices Danlami Senchi and Paul Bassi concurring—ruled that the Federal High Court erred in law when it dismissed the case on the basis of Section 308 of the 1999 Constitution, which provides immunity for sitting governors.

The appellate court held that while immunity may shield individuals from legal action, it does not extend to assets suspected to have been acquired through unlawful means.

It therefore reinstated the EFCC’s interim preservation order and instructed the anti-corruption agency to proceed with a substantive hearing to determine whether the assets should be permanently forfeited to the Federal Government.

The ruling followed an appeal filed by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) challenging the decision of Justice Nicholas Oweibo of the Federal High Court, who had earlier dismissed the commission’s case.

The properties in question, located in Lagos, Abuja, and Dubai, had initially been seized under an interim order secured by the EFCC via an ex parte application.

The commission claimed the assets were acquired through proceeds of corruption and included, among others, a luxury residence in the iconic Burj Khalifa, Dubai.

Justice Oweibo, however, set aside the order after Governor Bello contested the seizure.

Bello argued that the properties were acquired before his tenure as governor and were therefore unrelated to state funds.

His legal team cited Section 308 as grounds for immunity and further argued that the Federal High Court lacked territorial jurisdiction over properties outside Lagos.

They also challenged the applicability of the Proceeds of Crime Act, 2022, stating that the law should not be applied retroactively.

In counterarguments, EFCC counsel Rotimi Oyedepo (SAN) maintained that the anti-graft agency acted within its statutory powers and that the properties were subject to investigation regardless of the governor’s immunity status.

He insisted that the EFCC had not been barred by any valid court order from investigating or preserving such assets.

The appeal court, siding with the EFCC, ruled that the trial court’s reliance on the immunity clause was misplaced.

“The immunity granted to a sitting governor does not preclude the court from determining the status of property reasonably suspected to be the proceeds of crime,” Justice Nimpar stated.

The appellate court dismissed all preliminary objections raised by Bello’s counsel and ruled that the case should not have been struck out but rather heard to its logical conclusion.