The House of Representatives has taken steps
to strip the President of powers to order the
forfeiture of moveable and immovable assets
and to vest such powers on the nation’s courts.

This comes after the house on Thursday passed
for second reading a Bill that seeks to Amend
of the Currency Conversion (Freezing Orders)
Act Cap. C43, Laws of the- Federation of
Nigeria, 2004 to give discretionary powers to
the Judge of a High Court, to order forfeiture of
assets of affected persons.

Leading a debate on the general principles of
the bill sponsor of the bill and Deputy Speaker
of the House, Rep. Ahmed Idris Wase said the
discretionary power previously granted to the
President by the Principal Act will be replaced
by that of a High Court Judge to bring it in line
with the spirit of the Constitution as such
powers can be abused by the President.

According to Wase, the provision for forfeiture
in the Laws is geared towards ensuring that
persons found guilty of offenses do not benefit
from the proceeds of those offences, adding
that the doctrine of forfeiture is regulated by
several legal regime captured in various Laws
such as The Code of Conduct Bureau and
Tribunal Act, Cap C15, LFN, 2004; Foreign
Exchange Monitoring and Miscellaneous
Provision Act, Cap F34 LFN, 2004, Financial
Malpractices in Bank Act, Cap F2, 2004, EFCC
Act, Cap E4, 2004 among others.

He stressed that section 9 of the Currency
Conversion (Freezing Orders) Act, which was
first enacted in 1971 contains a provision which
deals with the subject of forfeiture that vest
the discretion to order forfeiture of movable
and immovable properties on the President of
the Federal Republic.

According to him, considering that the
Constitution guarantees right to movable and
immovable property as a Fundamental Right
under Chapter IV, Section 44, a person cannot
be deprived of such rights except in
circumstances stipulated by the Constitution,
stressing that Section 9 of the Principal Act runs
foul of the spirit of the Nigerian constitution.

The Deputy Speaker argued that the provision
which vest in the President the power to order
forfeiture of property (both movable or
immovable) is not in line with the provisions of
the 1999 Constitution (as amended), hence the
need for its amendment.

He maintained that Section 44 of the 1999
Constitution (as amended) guarantees the
fundamental right of individuals to movable
and immovable properties which shall not be
deprived except in specified circumstances
which include the ‘imposition of penalties or
forfeiture for the breach of any Law whether
under any civil process or after conviction for
an offence.

According to the Deputy Speaker, such breach
can only be determined by the Judge of a Court
and should never be at the discretion of the
President, insisting that the discretion of the
President to order the forfeiture of property of
an accused person can be subjected to
executive abuses and recklessness.

He maintained that Section 9 in the Principal
Act does not provide any mechanism (whether
legal or administrative) through which the
President may exercise this power, saying
“Instead, the power is left solely at the
discretion of the President. In a country that
has witnessed reckless abuse of political and
administrative powers, it will be dangerous to
allow such unchecked arrogation of powers to
determine the forfeiture of a person’s
properties.

“Such discretion to be exercised by the
President can be contrary to the natural
doctrine of fair trial as it amounts to the
executive being a prosecutor and a ‘Judge’ in its
own case. This negates the spirit of the 1999
Constitution (as amended) which specifies the
conditions under which a person can be
deprived of movable or immovable properties.

The President cannot therefore usurp the
Powers of the Courts for such will run foul of
the doctrine of Separation of Powers.

“It is noteworthy that the provisions in Section 9
is in contradiction with the provisions of other
Laws dealing with forfeiture which vest the
power to make forfeiture orders in a Law Court
and not in the President. It is therefore
important to bring the Currency Conversion
(Freezing Order) Act in line with these other
Laws.

“Vesting in the President the power to make
forfeiture order smack of the era of military
dictatorship where the Head of State and Head
of the Supreme Military Council can unilaterally
order the forfeiture of properties of persons
without recourse to any judicial mechanism.

This cannot be allowed to exit in a Democracy. I
therefore urge you all to support this
amendment bill.”

https://www.independent.ng/reps-move-to-strip-buhari-of-power-to-order-asset-forfeiture/

Nigeria is an international ghetto -- an irreparable international village.

Good move

chatinent:
Nigeria is an international ghetto -- an irreparable international village.

Conclusively, Nigeria is a zoo!

Kriss216:

Conclusively, Nigeria is a zoo!

Biaflans please leave this page

2023 game at play, tinubu and others are fighting back.

Our president won't consent nor sign it into law. You think his chief of staff won't read the content to his hearing severally, with a hausa interpreter on stand by just in case. That man was once in the military, take note

They are waking up gradually to their responsibility.

The House of Representatives has taken steps to strip the President of powers to order the forfeiture of moveable and immovable assets

House of Reps about to strip president of powers of something to benefit them and their croonies not ordinary Nigerians.

No be person wey don belleful dey get assets?

Waste of legislative time, as if Buhari would ascent to any bill reducing his powers

Audio move, believe this tales at your own peril

Where do they derive such power from? Jokers