Court okays Fed Govt’s takeover of ex-FCT Minister Useni’s UK house
By Eric Ikhilae, Abuja A Federal High Court in Abuja has issued an order for the final forfeiture of a property linked to the late former Minister of the Federal
By Eric Ikhilae, Abuja
A Federal High Court in Abuja has issued an order for the final forfeiture of a property linked to the late former Minister of the Federal Capital Territory (FCT), Gen Jeremiah Useni in the United Kingdom.
In a ruling yesterday, Justice Binta Nyako granted the application for final forfeiture of the property, which is at 79 Randall Avenue, London NW2, United Kingdom.
The suit was filed by the Code of Conduct Bureau (CCB) on the grounds that no one showed cause why the CCB’s request for final forfeiture should not be granted.
Justice Nyako had, upon an ex-parte motion, filed by the CCB late last year, issued an order on November 28, 2025 for the preservation of the property.
The judge also ordered that the said order for preservation be published for persons or authorities, whether corporate or otherwise, to indicate interest and file necessary processes to contend why the property should not be forfeited to the Federal Government.
In the motion, the CCB listed, as respondents, the Administrators of the Estate of late Gen. Jeremiah Useni, the Executors of the Estate of late Gen. Jeremiah Useni and the London property
Moving the motion for final forfeiture, CCB’s lawyer, Sufyan Ahmad, recalled that the court had, on November 20, 2025 granted his client’s motion and directed that the said order be published for persons or authorities, whether corporate or otherwise, to indicate interest and file necessary process why the property should not be forfeited to the Federal Government.
READ ALSO: When will the bloodlettings in stop?
Ahmad told the court that the directive was complied with and a publication made in a national daily on March 4.
The CCB lawyer claimed that no persons or authorities, whether corporate or otherwise indicated interest and or filed any process contesting why the property should not be forfeited to the Federal Government of Nigeria.
He then applied that his client’s prayer be granted, a request Justice Nyako acceded to in her ruling.
In a supporting affidavit, the CCB stated that the court, on November 28, 2025 granted an interim preservation order in respect of the property.
It said following the order, the CCB made a publication 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.
The CCB claimed that since the publication, no person or entity had come forward to show cause or establish any legitimate interest in the property.
It recalled 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 CCB states that the judgment further established that the “alias” used was intended to conceal the identity of the beneficial owner and suppress official documentation.
It claimed that Useni acquired the property during his tenure in public office and the circumstances strongly indicate that the funds used were from unlawful activity.
The CCB stated that it obtained the remuneration package for political, public and judicial officers from the Revenue Mobilisation, Allocation and Fiscal Commission (RMAFC), for a net worth analysis of the deceased while in service.
It added that 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.
The CCB added: “There is substantial ‘unexplained funds’ gap indicating that funds used for the acquisition must have come from other, undisclosed or undeclared sources.
“This gap constitutes a strong circumstantial indicator of potential fraud/unreported income or illicit accumulation of wealth.
“Accordingly, the means of acquisition of the London property constitutes proceeds of unlawful activity.”
The CCB claimed that there was reasonable ground to believe that the property constituted the proceeds of unlawful activity as indicated by the analysis of FIFAU.
It added that it would be in the overriding interest of justice for the court to grant a final forfeiture order in favour of the Federal Government.
