Retired Army General Loses Fraudulently Acquired NMulti Billion Assets To Federal Government

Retired Army General Loses Fraudulently Acquired NMulti Billion  Assets

 

OpenLife News reports that the Lagos Division of the Court of Appeal affirmed the final forfeiture of over N293.97 million, landed properties, and investment assets linked to retired Major General Emmanuel Jebe Atewe to the Federal Government. The unanimous judgment, delivered virtually on July 22, 2026, dismissed Atewe’s appeal against an earlier ruling by the Federal High Court.

General Emmanuel Jebe Atewe served in the Niger Delta as the Commander of the military Joint Task Force (JTF), Operation Pulo Shield, from 2014 to 2015.

General Atewe had appealed May 5, 2023 judgment of Justice Chukwujekwu Aneke of a Federal High Court, Lagos, which granted the EFCC’s application for the final forfeiture of several properties, cash and investment assets for being proceeds of unlawful activities.

In its judgment, the Court of Appeal held that Section 123 of the Armed Forces Act (AFA) and the decision in General Jafaru Muhammed v. EFCC, relied upon by Atewe, were inapplicable to his case.

The court held that while General Jafaru was a serving military officer, Atewe is a retired military officer who had admitted that fact in his affidavit to show cause before the trial court.

The appellate court further held that Section 123 of the Armed Forces Act applies only to serving military personnel and therefore could not avail the appellant.

The court also held that the forfeiture proceedings before the Federal High Court were sui generis, being proceedings directed solely against assets and not against the person of the appellant.

It found that Atewe failed to sufficiently show how he genuinely acquired the assets sought to be forfeited, noting that his explanation merely referred to unspecified honoraria without providing adequate particulars or evidence linking those payments to the acquisition of the properties.

The appellate court further rejected Atewe’s argument that the institution of civil forfeiture proceedings while criminal charges involving substantially the same transactions were pending amounted to an abuse of judicial process.

It held that the pendency of a criminal prosecution does not preclude the EFCC from pursuing civil forfeiture proceedings under the law.

Consequently, the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal and affirmed the judgment of Justice Aneke forfeiting the assets to the Federal Government.

Justice Aneke had held that Atewe failed to satisfactorily explain the lawful source of the assets after the EFCC established reasonable grounds to suspect that they were acquired with proceeds of unlawful activities.

The trial court also rejected Atewe’s contention that the forfeiture proceedings constituted an abuse of court process because he was already standing trial in a separate criminal case involving substantially the same transactions.

In reaching that decision, the Justice Aneke relied on the Court of Appeal’s earlier decision in Air Vice Marshal Jacob Adigun v. EFCC, which established that civil forfeiture proceedings under Section 17 of the Advance Fee Fraud and Other Fraud Related Offences Act are independent of criminal proceedings and may continue even where a criminal prosecution involving the same assets is pending.

The assets forfeited include N3.97 million, Plot MF62 at the Outer Northern Expressway, Abuja, Plot No. 1228, Jahi, Abuja, Plots CP6386 and CP6387 at Sabon Lugbe East Extension Layout, Airport Road, Abuja, one-hectare parcels of land in Kuje District, a 50-hectare farmland at Gaube Farmland Extension II Layout, Kuje, a parcel of land at Commercial Layout, Yenagoa Gardens, Bayelsa State, 30,000 MTN Shares held by Stanbic IBTC Asset Management Limited, and Plot No. CP10, Sector Centre B Layout, Kuje, Abuja.

The EFCC had told the trial court that investigations into the alleged diversion of over N8.5 billion belonging to the Nigerian Maritime Administration and Safety Agency (NIMASA) through the Joint Task Force (Operation Pulo Shield) revealed that funds were routed through several companies and proxies before being used to acquire the assets.

The EFCC maintained that the properties were reasonably suspected to have been acquired with proceeds of unlawful activities and were therefore liable to forfeiture under the Advance Fee Fraud and Other Fraud Related Offences Act.