Federal High Court Abuja: EFCC Forfeiture Bid Saleh Mamman Struck Out

• The Federal High Court in Abuja struck out the EFCC's motion to forfeit properties linked to former Power Minister Engr. Saleh Mamman.
• The EFCC withdrew its forfeiture bid because Mamman is appealing his prior conviction for N33.8 billion fraud and a 75-year prison sentence.
• Mamman's appeal, filed at the Court of Appeal, lists 18 grounds, including alleged violations of his right to fair hearing and improper handling of witness testimony.
• He contends his conviction was delivered in his absence without proper notice and that the trial judge exhibited bias.
• The forfeiture motion was filed under specific sections of the EFCC Act and the Administration of Criminal Justice Act 2015, seeking to permanently seize assets.

The withdrawal of the forfeiture motion underscores the intricate procedural relationship between ongoing criminal appeals and subsequent asset recovery efforts in Nigeria's legal system.

The Federal High Court in Abuja, presided over by Justice James Omotosho, recently struck out a motion filed by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) that sought to forfeit properties allegedly linked to former Minister of Power, Engr. Saleh Mamman. The EFCC's prosecution counsel, Abba Mohammed, informed the court of the decision to withdraw the motion, which was dated July 29, 2026, and had been initiated under Section 20 of the EFCC Act 2004, Section 321 of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act 2015, and Section 6(6) of the 1999 Constitution, pertaining to charge number FHC/ABJ/CR/273/2024.

The primary reason cited for the withdrawal of the EFCC forfeiture bid against Saleh Mamman was the ongoing appeal lodged by the former minister against his conviction. Defence counsel Femi Atteh did not object to the withdrawal request. Consequently, Justice Omotosho granted the application as presented, issuing a brief ruling that formally struck out the motion. This development highlights the procedural complexities that can arise in asset forfeiture cases, particularly when intertwined with active criminal appeals in Nigeria.

The EFCC's attempt to secure a consequential order for the permanent forfeiture of properties traced to Engr. Saleh Mamman stemmed directly from his earlier conviction. Justice Omotosho had previously found Mamman guilty on 12 counts related to an alleged N33.8 billion fraud, subsequently imposing consecutive prison terms that amounted to a total of 75 years. The forfeiture motion aimed to seize assets identified by the commission following this conviction and sentencing.

However, Mamman has since challenged this judgment, initiating an appeal process at the Court of Appeal, Abuja Division. His legal team, led by Femi Atteh, SAN, filed a notice of appeal on May 26, 2026, seeking to overturn the conviction, discharge him, and secure his acquittal. It was this significant legal challenge to the underlying conviction that prompted the EFCC to withdraw its forfeiture application, recognizing that the fate of the assets is intrinsically linked to the appellate court's decision on Mamman's guilt.

Engr. Saleh Mamman's appeal against his conviction is predicated on 18 distinct grounds, challenging various aspects of the trial court's proceedings and findings. A central argument posits that his fundamental right to a fair hearing was violated when the judgment was delivered in his absence on May 7, 2026. His legal team contends that this occurred despite an earlier adjournment to June 9, 2026, for judgment, and that the date was abridged without any prior hearing notice served upon him, nor did he waive his right to be present. This, they argue, constitutes a breach of Section 36 of the 1999 Constitution and Section 352(4) of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act 2015.

Further grounds of appeal include allegations that the trial judge improperly prevented a subpoenaed defense witness, Abdulkareem Ozi Ibrahim (a Director of Special Projects Accounts in the Office of the Accountant General of the Federation), from testifying. Concurrently, the defense claims the prosecution was improperly allowed to reopen the examination-in-chief of the same witness after its case had already closed and the matter was adjourned for cross-examination. Mamman's team also asserts that the conviction relied substantially on uncorroborated accomplice evidence and included counts 7-12, for which no plea was ever taken. They argue that the trial court wrongly concluded that funds from the Zungeru and Mambilla Hydroelectric power projects were diverted for his personal use, given that these funds were domiciled with the Central Bank of Nigeria, controlled by the Office of the Accountant-General of the Federation, and Mamman was neither an approving authority nor a signatory to the accounts.

Other contentions include findings based on hearsay, disregard for documentary evidence, and speculation, as well as an improper shifting of the burden of proof onto Mamman regarding the source of funds for a property at No. 12 Lungi Street, Wuse II, Abuja. Finally, the appeal challenges the admission of his extra-judicial statements without compliance with Sections 15 and 17 of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act 2015, specifically noting the absence of audio-visual recordings, and alleges clear judicial bias throughout the proceedings, leading to a miscarriage of justice. The conviction and 75-year sentence have drawn strong criticism from Mamman's family and legal representatives.

The decision to strike out the EFCC's forfeiture bid against Saleh Mamman, driven by the ongoing appeal of his conviction, offers significant insights into the procedural intricacies of asset forfeiture in Nigeria. This case illustrates how the validity of a forfeiture order is often contingent upon the finality of the underlying criminal conviction. Should Mamman's appeal at the Court of Appeal succeed in quashing his conviction, any subsequent attempts by the EFCC to forfeit his assets based on that conviction would likely be rendered moot.

For legal practitioners, the detailed grounds of appeal raised by Engr. Saleh Mamman's team are particularly instructive. Arguments concerning fair hearing violations, the proper handling of witness testimony, the burden of proof, and the admissibility of extra-judicial statements, especially under the Administration of Criminal Justice Act 2015, could establish important precedents. These points of contention highlight critical areas of due process and judicial conduct, offering valuable insights for defense strategies in future high-profile criminal and forfeiture proceedings involving public officials in Nigeria. The outcome of this Engr. Saleh Mamman conviction appeal will undoubtedly shape the landscape of asset recovery and criminal justice enforcement.

This case illustrates the procedural intricacies of asset forfeiture in Nigeria, particularly when intertwined with ongoing criminal appeals. Lawyers should observe the specific grounds of appeal concerning fair hearing, witness testimony, and burden of proof, as these arguments could establish precedents or inform defense strategies in future high-profile criminal and forfeiture proceedings.

Source: Reporting based on original court documents and legal proceedings.