Lukman Olabiyi
Former managing director of the Pipelines and Product Marketing Company (PPMC), Haruna Momoh, and his wife, Eileen, yesterday stated that the Independent Corrupt Practices Commission (ICPC) misled the Court in granting temporary forfeiture order against them.
It was reported on Monday that the Federal High Court, Abuja, had ordered the temporary forfeiture of N2.4 billion said to belong to them, following an ex-parte application filed and moved before the court by the ICPC
The Commission in praying the court to grant the order, said it had initiated moves to recover the N2, 417, 037, 404 billion permanently, alongside some landed properties linked to Momoh.
Reacting to the ruling through a statement, issued by the couple’s counsel, Mr. Ade Adedeji, SAN, the Momohs claimed that the ICPC obtained the order by deception and suppression of facts.
They said they had no funds in Stanbic IBTC Bank, contrary to the ICPC’s claim that it found millions in Euros, Dollars and Naira in accounts linked to them and that “the aggregate sum in the other banks are far less” than what was announced by the Commission.
The duo alleged that the Commission deliberately failed to inform the judge that two other Federal High Courts, in 2017 and July 2019, had ruled that the source of the funds was not illicit.
They said the ICPC had appealed the July judgment, but, rather than pursue its appeal, it surreptitiously approached another court and misled the judge into forfeiting the funds.
The statement read: “We have read the publications in the Newspapers on Tuesday ,and we confirm that the order obtained by ICPC, which we have since confirmed through a search of the records of court, is a calculated scheme by the ICPC to pervert justice.
“Indeed, we can confirm that on July 4, Blaid Group and Mrs. Momoh obtained judgment at the Federal High Court, which judgment permanently settled issues between parties in Suit No.FHC/ABJ/CS/132/2019. As it is also the right of parties, ICPC had appealed the judgment through filing of Notice of Appeal, etc. But rather than prosecute their appeal, they surreptitiously approached the FCT High Court and misled the court as if the appeal never existed.
“Without disclosing to the new Court that there was judgment of the Federal High Court against them, they moved the court ex-parte to grant an order of temporary forfeiture.”
