By TAIYE AGBAJE

Hearing in a suit filed by the Code of Conduct Bureau (CCB) for the final forfeiture of a United Kingdom (UK) property linked to the late Jeremiah Useni, former Minister of the Federal Capital Territory (FCT), and Chief Mike Ozekhome, SAN was, on Monday, stalled.

The case, listed for mention before Justice Binta Nyako of the Federal High Court in Abuja could not proceed due to inability of CCB to effect a proper service of the motion for final forfeiture and hearing notice on the respondents.

The News Agency of Nigeria (NAN) reports that the CCB, in the suit marked: FHC/ABJ/CS/2333/2025, had named the Administrators of the Estate of late Gen. Jeremiah Useni, the Executors of the Estate of Late Gen. Jeremiah Useni and the Property No. 79, Randall Avenue, Neasden, London NW2 7SX as 1st to 3rd respondents respectively.

In the motion on notice dated Dec. 18, 2025 but filed Dec. 22, 2025 by its lawyer, Sufyan Ahmad, the CCB sought an order of final forfeiture of the property of the deceased respondent situated at No. 79, Randall Avenue, Neasden, London NW2 7SX, reasonably suspected to have been acquired with proceeds of unlawful activities.

Ahmad, in a four-ground argument, said the court had the inherent as well as the statutory powers under the provisions of Section 7, 17, 19 and 67 of the Proceeds of Crime (Recovery and Management) Act 2022, Sections 6 and 44 of the 1999 Constitution (as amended), to grant the application.

He argued that the property sought to be forfeited is reasonably suspected to be proceeds of unlawful activity under Sections 17 and Section 19 of the Proceeds Of Crime (Recovery and Management) Act (POCA), 2022.

The lawyer said the court granted an interim order of preservation of the said property on Nov. 28, 2025, and directed that the said order be published for persons, authority whether corporate or otherwise to indicate interest and file necessary process why the property should not be forfeited to the Federal Government.

He, however, submitted that no persons, authority whether corporate or otherwise indicated interest and or filed any process contesting why the property should not be forfeited to the Federal Government.

When the case was called on Monday, no lawyer appeared for the respondents though the CCB’s counsel was in court.

Ahmad then informed the court that their motion on notice, filed on Dec. 22, 2025, had been duly served and the proof of service filed accordingly.

When Justice Nyako asked how they affect the service of the court documents, the lawyer said they used the deceased’s address.

Ahmad said the bailiff took the documents to the late Useni’s one of his property in his assets declaration form in Jos but they were told the deceased was no longer there.

He said they were directed to a legal firm but the firm said it had no authority to receive the documents.

He said through the law firm, they got the address of the deceased’s daughter in Abuja and the court documents were served on the daughter.

The judge then asked if the daughter was the “administrator of the estate” listed on the face of the motion on notice and the lawyer responded in the negative.

When the judge also asked if Ahmad was aware of Useni’s will, he equally responded in the negative.

Justice Nyako, who faulted the service of the documents, said Ahmad ought to apply for a substituted service so that anyone who is interested in the matter could join issues with them, especially the 3rd respondent.

The judge subsequently adjourned the matter until Feb. 25 for mention.

In the affidavit in support of the motion on notice for final forfeiture deposed to by a CCB’s investigator, Raji Rasaq, he said on Nov. 28, 2025, the court granted an interim preservation order in respect of the property.

He said pursuant to the said order, his office caused a publication to be made in a widely circulated national newspaper inviting any person with interest in the said property to show cause within 14 days why the property should not be forfeited to the Federal Government.

Rasaq said since the publication, no person or entity had come forward to show cause or establish any legitimate interest in the property.

He said that the First-Tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) of the United Kingdom in suit REF/2023/0155 delivered judgment confirming that the late Useni was the true owner of the property, having purchased it under a fictitious name.

The investigator said that the judgment further established that the “alias” used was intended to conceal the identity of the beneficial owner and suppress official documentation.

According to him, the deceased acquired the property during his tenure in public office and the circumstances strongly indicate that the funds used were from unlawful activity.

He said the CCB obtained the remuneration package for political, public and judicial officers from the Revenue Mobilisation, Allocation and Fiscal Commission (RMAFC), the agency of government responsible for determining remuneration for political, public and judicial officers for a net worth analysis of the deceased while in service.

The investigator said a net worth analysis conducted by the Financial Investigation and Forensic Accounting Unit (FIFAU) of the CCB, using the salary scale for political, public and judicial officers as provided by the RMAFC, found out that the deceased declared income at the time was grossly insufficient to account for the acquisition of the property.

“That there is substantial ‘unexplained funds’ gap indicating that funds used for the acquisition must have come from other, undisclosed or undeclared sources.

“That this gap constitutes a strong circumstantial indicator of potential fraud/unreported income or illicit accumulation of wealth.

“That accordingly, the means of acquisition of the London property constitutes proceeds of unlawful activity,” he averred.

Rasaq his office possesses the asset declaration form of the deceased wherein he declared ownership of the property even though it was purchased under a fictitious name.

“The said form is already annexed as Exhibit B in the earlier application,” he said.

He said there was reasonable ground to believe that the property constituted the proceeds of unlawful activity as indicated by the analysis of FIFAU.

He said it would be in the overriding interest of justice for the court to grant a final forfeiture order in favour of the Federal Government.

NAN reports that also named in the property dispute is Ozekhome.

The matter, filed at the First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Land Registration, UK, under case number: REF/2023/0155, listed Tali Shani as the applicant and Ozekhome as the respondent.

The property had been claimed by one “Ms Tali Shani” on one hand and Ozekhome on the other.

Ozekhome said he received the house as a gift from “Mr Tali Shani” in 2021, while lawyers for “Ms Shani” insisted she was the rightful owner.

A witness known as “Mr Tali Shani” had testified in favour of Ozekhome, claiming that he had “Powers of Attorney” over the property and had transferred the property to the respondent (Ozekhome).

Mr Tali Shani asserted ownership of the property from 1993 and claimed he later appointed Useni as his property manager, describing Useni as an “elder friend and business partner”.

On the other hand, several documents, including an obituary announcement, NIN card, ECOWAS passport, phone number, etc, were tendered by witnesses of Ms Tali Shani to claim ownership of the property.

However, the tribunal found all the documents tendered for Ms Tali Shani to be fake.

The tribunal subsequently dismissed all claims, ruling that neither “Mr” nor “Ms” Tali Shani existed. (NAN)