Daniel Otera
A Federal High Court in Abuja has granted a final order permanently forfeiting $49,700 seized from the home of Dr Nura Ali, a former Resident Electoral Commissioner (REC) posted to Sokoto State, closing a chapter that began with a December 2024 interim seizure and reviving questions about electoral integrity and illicit payments to public officials.
Justice Emeka Nwite delivered the ruling on Wednesday after counsel for the Independent Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Commission (ICPC), Mr Osuobeni Akponimisingha, told the court that the anti‑graft agency had complied with the court’s earlier directive for temporary forfeiture and had published a public notice inviting anyone with an interest to show cause why the funds should not be forfeited. “We, therefore, seek an order permanently forfeiting the sum of $49,700 to the Federal Government, in view of the compliance with the interim order and the absence of any opposition,” Mr Akponimisingha said.
After examining the supporting affidavit, Justice Nwite found the ICPC’s application meritorious and formally ordered the money forfeited to the Federal Government. The application flowed from an ex parte motion jointly filed by the ICPC and the Department of State Services (DSS) on 30 December 2024, registered as FHC/ABJ/CS/1846/2024.
Court papers say the money was discovered during a DSS search of Dr Ali’s Kano residence while he was serving as INEC REC during the 2023 general elections. A litigation officer at the ICPC, Iliya Markus, deposed to an affidavit asserting that intelligence suggested the funds were bribes from political stakeholders. Dr Ali is reported to have told investigators the cash was a gift from former Sokoto State governor Aminu Tambuwal and Senator Aliyu Wamakko, and he later petitioned the DSS for its release. The ICPC emphasised that INEC does not remunerate staff in United States dollars and that the recovered currency was therefore suspicious.
Nigeria’s asset forfeiture regime allows interim and final forfeiture where property is suspected to be proceeds of unlawful activity or otherwise not lawfully acquired. Interim forfeiture secures assets while investigations continue; a final forfeiture order is granted where an applicant satisfies the court that statutory requirements and public notice obligations have been met and no legitimate claimants come forward.
The joint ICPC–DSS motion that prompted the December 2024 interim order sought temporary forfeiture “pending the outcome of further investigations,” according to court records. The subsequent publication of a show‑cause notice in a national newspaper is a routine requirement intended to give potential claimants an opportunity to contest forfeiture applications.
With no objections lodged following the public notice, the court accepted the ICPC’s argument and authorised permanent forfeiture. The result places the $49,700 under Federal Government control and signals the judiciary’s willingness to sustain anti‑corruption measures where procedural steps have been observed.
Legal observers note that final forfeiture does not equate to a criminal conviction for the person from whom assets were seized. Civil forfeiture proceedings focus on the character of the property whether it is traceable to criminal conduct rather than establishing guilt beyond reasonable doubt in a related criminal trial. That distinction often provokes debate about due process and property rights, particularly where individuals assert lawful provenance for seized assets.
The seizure and forfeiture occur against a wider backdrop of scrutiny over electoral financing and the behaviour of election officials during the 2023 polls. Allegations of vote manipulation and illicit funding streams have periodically shadowed Nigeria’s electoral cycles, prompting calls for tighter oversight and transparency at INEC and among political actors.
The ICPC’s affidavit alleged that Dr Ali received payments from political stakeholders while serving as REC, an assertion that, if proven, would contravene laws designed to protect electoral neutrality. Dr Ali’s explanation that the cash represented gifts from prominent political figures brings the matter into the public domain and raises questions about how political influence is exercised during election administration.
Court records show the interim forfeiture motion was jointly signed by Mr Usman Dauda, Director of Legal Services for the DSS, and later filed formally by ICPC counsel Akponimisingha. Following the court’s final order, the ICPC and relevant agencies will take administrative steps to transfer the funds to the Federal Treasury in accordance with the ruling and applicable forfeiture procedures.
The ruling does not appear to have been met with immediate legal challenge. If Dr Ali or any interested party believes the court erred in law or fact, available legal remedies include an appeal against the forfeiture order within the timelines and grounds permitted by the Court of Appeal.
Beyond the immediate monetary value, the case highlights persistent governance challenges: the vulnerability of public institutions to undue influence, the limits of civil forfeiture as an anti‑corruption tool, and the importance of transparent investigatory and prosecutorial processes that respect defendants’ rights while protecting public resources.