By Iroyin Yoruba Television
A Federal High Court sitting in Lagos has ordered the final forfeiture of two properties in Abuja which the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission linked to an alleged N777.2 million fraudulent transaction, marking another significant development in Nigeria's ongoing fight against financial crimes and the recovery of suspected proceeds of fraud.
Justice Deinde Dipeolu made the final forfeiture order on Wednesday, October 7, 2026, after considering an application filed by the EFCC seeking permanent forfeiture of the properties.
The properties include a three-bedroom bungalow located at Plot D061, Magoro Drive, Phase 2, City View Estate, Dakwo District, Abuja, and approximately 4.2 hectares of land located at Plots MF 2344, 1980A, 1981A and 1979A in Sabon Lugbe East Extension, Abuja.
The properties were linked by the anti-graft agency to Adeseun Adeniyi Olakunle and another individual in connection with an alleged fraudulent transaction.
The EFCC told the court that the investigation originated from a petition alleging obtaining money by false pretence and stealing.
The commission said the suspects allegedly represented themselves as having connections that would enable them to secure a large parcel of government-backed land in Lagos.
According to the EFCC, the representations resulted in the transfer of approximately N751.5 million to accounts connected to the suspects.
The commission subsequently traced portions of the money to the acquisition of the two Abuja properties.
COURT GRANTS EFCC APPLICATION
Justice Dipeolu granted the EFCC's application after considering the evidence and legal arguments presented before the court.
The application was brought under provisions of the Advance Fee Fraud and Other Fraud Related Offences Act, the 1999 Constitution and the court's inherent jurisdiction.
The EFCC asked the court to make permanent an earlier interim forfeiture order covering the properties.
After considering the application and the materials placed before it, the court determined that the commission had established sufficient grounds for the final forfeiture.
The order means the properties are now permanently forfeited under the terms of the court's decision.
Asset forfeiture is one of the mechanisms used by Nigerian anti-corruption agencies to prevent suspected proceeds of crime from remaining in the possession or control of individuals linked to alleged financial offences.
The latest decision therefore represents another step in the EFCC's efforts to recover assets associated with suspected fraud.
HOW THE INVESTIGATION BEGAN
The EFCC said the investigation began after it received a petition from Bolaji Ayorinde Law LLP.
The petition concerned allegations of obtaining money by false pretence and stealing involving Olakunle and Omotosho Abraham Aremu.
According to the anti-graft agency, the suspects allegedly approached a complainant in 2025 with a purported land allocation scheme.
The scheme allegedly involved approximately 30 million square metres of land in Maroko, Lekki 1, Lagos.
The suspects allegedly claimed that the land allocation was supported by the Federal Government and that they had direct connections to senior government officials and the Office of the Surveyor-General of the Federation.
The EFCC said one of the suspects also allegedly presented himself as a deputy director with the Lagos State Government.
The commission alleged that the representations created confidence in the complainant, who subsequently transferred substantial sums of money.
MILLIONS OF NAIRA TRANSFERRED
The EFCC said the complainant made three major payments in 2025.
According to the commission's evidence, N1.5 million was transferred on August 19.
Another N15 million was transferred on August 28.
A further N735 million was transferred on September 8.
The total amount transferred in those three transactions was approximately N751.5 million.
The EFCC said the payments were made because of representations that the suspects could facilitate the allocation of the land.
The commission subsequently investigated the movement of the funds.
Investigators traced portions of the money to transactions involving property purchases.
That financial trail eventually connected the alleged fraudulent proceeds to the two Abuja properties that were the subject of the forfeiture proceedings.
HOW THE ABUJA PROPERTIES WERE LINKED
One of the properties is a three-bedroom bungalow at City View Estate in the Dakwo District of Abuja.
The EFCC said investigators traced N145 million to an individual identified as Nwadije Tracy Otite on September 16, 2025, for the purchase of the bungalow.
The commission said the investigation established that the property was connected to the funds under investigation.
A second transaction involved N100 million allegedly transferred to NCR and Associates Limited on October 9, 2025.
The EFCC said that money was connected to the purchase of the second property.
The second property comprises approximately 4.2 hectares of land in Sabon Lugbe East Extension, Abuja.
The agency subsequently investigated the recipients of the funds and their connection to the properties.
INTERIM FORFEITURE PRECEDED FINAL ORDER
The final forfeiture order did not occur without an earlier court process.
The EFCC said Justice Dipeolu had previously granted an interim forfeiture order on June 17, 2026.
An interim forfeiture order temporarily preserves property while interested parties are given an opportunity to challenge the action.
The EFCC was directed to publish the order to notify anyone who might have an interest in the properties.
According to the commission, the order was subsequently published in The Guardian newspaper on July 3.
The publication was intended to give affected parties an opportunity to appear before the court and explain why the properties should not be permanently forfeited.
The EFCC said no objection was received from the respondents following the publication.
The commission therefore returned to court and asked Justice Dipeolu to make the forfeiture permanent.
COURT FINDS APPLICATION HAS MERIT
During Wednesday's proceedings, EFCC counsel Chinyere Okezie urged the court to grant the application.
The prosecution relied on the affidavit evidence and other legal documents supporting the forfeiture request.
The court reviewed the materials and legal authorities submitted by the anti-graft agency.
Justice Dipeolu subsequently ruled that the EFCC's application had merit.
The court therefore granted the application as requested.
The decision represents the final stage of the specific forfeiture process concerning the two properties.
WHY ASSET RECOVERY MATTERS
Asset recovery is an important component of Nigeria's anti-corruption strategy.
Investigating financial crimes can take considerable time, particularly when large sums of money have moved through several accounts.
If suspected proceeds of crime are converted into land, buildings, vehicles or other assets, investigators can attempt to trace the funds and seek court orders to preserve or recover those assets.
The objective is to prevent individuals accused of financial crimes from benefiting from allegedly stolen or fraudulently obtained funds.
However, because property rights are protected under Nigerian law, forfeiture proceedings must go through the courts.
The latest ruling demonstrates that principle.
The EFCC investigated the transactions, traced the funds and sought an interim order before ultimately returning to court for a final forfeiture decision.
THE IMPORTANCE OF COURT OVERSIGHT
Court oversight is particularly important in asset-forfeiture proceedings.
An anti-corruption agency cannot simply take permanent ownership of a person's property without following the applicable legal process.
The court provides an avenue for interested parties to challenge the government's application.
In this case, the EFCC said the interim order was published to notify potential interested parties.
After no objection was received, the agency returned to court seeking the final order.
Justice Dipeolu then considered the evidence and granted the application.
The process illustrates the role of the judiciary in balancing government efforts to recover suspected criminal proceeds with property rights.
ALLEGED GOVERNMENT CONNECTIONS
One of the most significant elements of the investigation concerns the alleged representations made to the complainant.
The EFCC said the suspects allegedly claimed to have direct connections to the Presidency and the Surveyor-General of the Federation.
The agency also alleged that one suspect presented himself as a deputy director with the Lagos State Government.
Such representations can be particularly influential in financial transactions involving government land or contracts.
A person who falsely claims to hold a government position or have official connections may be able to persuade individuals to transfer money that they would otherwise not release.
The EFCC's investigation therefore focused not only on the movement of money but also on the alleged representations that preceded the payments.
THE ROLE OF FINANCIAL TRACING
The case demonstrates how financial tracing can connect an alleged fraud to physical assets.
The original allegations concerned a purported land allocation scheme.
However, investigators were eventually able to trace portions of the money to property transactions in Abuja.
Financial tracing can help investigators establish whether funds from a suspected crime were subsequently used to acquire assets.
Bank records, payment instructions, account statements and property documents can all become important pieces of evidence.
In major financial-crime investigations, following the money can sometimes reveal assets that would otherwise appear unrelated to the original allegation.
WHAT THE FORFEITURE MEANS
The final forfeiture means the two properties are no longer simply subject to an interim preservation order.
They have now been permanently forfeited pursuant to the court's judgment.
The government will therefore have legal authority to deal with the properties in accordance with the applicable asset-management and recovery procedures.
Recovered assets may eventually be sold or otherwise managed according to Nigerian law.
The broader objective is to ensure that assets connected to proven or legally established financial wrongdoing do not remain available for private benefit.
EFCC'S WIDER ASSET-RECOVERY CAMPAIGN
The latest ruling forms part of a broader EFCC campaign targeting assets allegedly acquired through financial crimes.
The commission has increasingly pursued forfeiture proceedings alongside criminal investigations and prosecutions.
This approach allows authorities to focus not only on whether an individual should face criminal charges but also on whether assets connected to alleged unlawful transactions can be preserved and recovered through the courts.
Asset recovery can be particularly important in cases where money has already been converted into property.
Cash can be moved quickly or concealed, but property is more difficult to transfer without documentation.
Investigators can therefore use property records to establish ownership and trace financial transactions.
THE NEED FOR STRONGER DUE DILIGENCE
The case also provides a warning to individuals considering transactions involving supposed government land allocations.
People dealing with large sums of money should verify the identity and authority of anyone claiming to represent government agencies.
Official land allocations and government-backed transactions normally involve formal documentation and established procedures.
Potential investors should therefore conduct independent verification rather than relying solely on personal introductions or claims of political connections.
The alleged fraud in this case demonstrates how claims of access to powerful officials can potentially be used to create false confidence.
ANOTHER DEVELOPMENT IN NIGERIA'S ANTI-CORRUPTION DRIVE
Nigeria continues to face pressure to strengthen efforts against fraud, corruption and illicit financial activity.
The recovery of assets can demonstrate that anti-corruption enforcement has consequences beyond arrests and court appearances.
When courts order the forfeiture of properties linked to financial crimes, investigators can potentially recover part of the value associated with the alleged wrongdoing.
However, the effectiveness of the process depends on credible investigations, proper documentation, judicial oversight and transparent management of recovered assets.
WHAT HAPPENS NEXT
With the final forfeiture order now granted, the two Abuja properties can proceed into the appropriate government asset-management process.
The EFCC will also continue its wider investigation and enforcement activities surrounding financial crimes.
The final forfeiture order does not by itself establish criminal guilt in every aspect of the underlying allegations against every individual mentioned in the investigation.
Rather, it represents a judicial determination concerning the properties that were the subject of the specific forfeiture application.
Any separate criminal proceedings against individuals involved in the alleged transactions would have to be determined according to the evidence and applicable legal procedures.
CONCLUSION
The Federal High Court's final forfeiture of the two Abuja properties represents a significant development in Nigeria's continuing campaign against financial crimes and the recovery of suspected proceeds of fraud.
The properties, consisting of a three-bedroom bungalow and approximately 4.2 hectares of land, were linked by the EFCC to transactions arising from an alleged N777.2 million fraud.
The commission said the investigation began after a petition concerning alleged false representations about a government-backed land allocation scheme in Lagos.
Investigators subsequently traced portions of the money to the acquisition of the Abuja properties.
After an interim forfeiture order was granted in June and the order was publicly advertised, the EFCC returned to court seeking permanent forfeiture.
Justice Deinde Dipeolu granted the application on October 7 after reviewing the materials presented by the commission.
The case highlights the growing importance of asset recovery in Nigeria's anti-corruption efforts.
It also demonstrates the importance of following financial trails and obtaining judicial orders when suspected criminal proceeds have been converted into property.
For the EFCC, the ruling represents another successful step in recovering assets linked to alleged financial wrongdoing.
For Nigeria's wider anti-corruption campaign, the case reinforces the principle that financial investigations can extend beyond identifying suspicious transactions to tracing and recovering assets through the courts.