The recent decision of the Supreme Court in SC/CV/546/2024 – Marhaba Event Place Ltd & Ors v. EFCC & Ors marks another significant judicial endorsement of civil forfeiture as a strategic legal mechanism in Nigeria’s anti-corruption framework. The judgment, delivered on 20 February 2026, reaffirmed the power of the State to confiscate assets reasonably suspected to be proceeds of unlawful activities even without a criminal conviction. The decision highlights the evolving jurisprudence on non-conviction based forfeiture and its role in safeguarding public policy in Nigeria’s anti-graft war.
The appeal arose from an order of final forfeiture made by the Federal High Court and affirmed by the Court of Appeal concerning twenty-four properties allegedly traced to the late Major General Maude Aminu Kano through companies associated with him. These properties included filling stations, event centres, manufacturing facilities, undeveloped plots and commercial plazas across Kano, Kaduna, Katsina, Cross River and other locations.
At the heart of the dispute was the interpretation of section 17 of the Advanced Fee Fraud and Other Fraud Related Offences Act 2006. The Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) had initially secured an interim forfeiture order through an ex-parte motion after presenting evidence suggesting that the properties were purchased using cash transactions amounting to billions of naira, allegedly supplied by the deceased general through an intermediary.
After publication of the interim order, the companies claiming ownership filed a notice to show cause arguing that the properties were legitimately acquired through consultancy and oil-and-gas business ventures undertaken by the deceased. However, the trial court held that the claimants failed to demonstrate the lawful source of the funds used in acquiring the assets. This finding was affirmed at every stage of appeal, culminating in the Supreme Court’s dismissal of the final appeal.
The Concept of Civil Forfeiture in Anti-Corruption Law
Civil forfeiture, often described as non-conviction-based asset forfeiture, allows the State to seize assets suspected to be proceeds of unlawful activities without first obtaining a criminal conviction against the owner. As explained in the concurring opinion of Justice Habeeb Abiru, the concept is an internationally recognized instrument designed to combat corruption and illicit enrichment. According to the court, corruption “suppresses economic growth, undermines social security and diverts resources away from essential public services.”
While the legal principles articulated by the court strengthen Nigeria’s anti-corruption framework, the outcome was undoubtedly devastating for the appellants. The companies lost control of an extensive portfolio of assets—including filling stations, event centres and commercial properties—after failing to convince the court that the funds used for acquisition were legitimate.
A critical weakness in their case was their inability to connect the voluminous title documents tendered in evidence with proof of lawful income. The courts observed that evidence of ownership does not automatically prove lawful acquisition. Rather, what the claimants needed to establish was the legitimate source of the funds used to acquire the properties.
The rationale is simple but powerful: crime should not pay. Public policy demands that individuals should not be permitted to retain assets derived from unlawful activities. Courts in several jurisdictions have upheld this principle on the basis that the right to property cannot protect assets tainted by illegality.
The Supreme Court reiterated that civil forfeiture proceedings are fundamentally different from criminal prosecutions. They do not impose punishment, imprisonment or criminal liability. Instead, they are civil proceedings directed at property itself rather than the personal guilt of an accused person.
The Burden-Shifting Structure of Civil Forfeiture
One of the central issues in the appeal concerned the burden of proof. The appellants argued that the EFCC failed to provide sufficient evidence that the assets were proceeds of crime and that the burden should not have been placed on them to prove legitimacy of the funds.
The Supreme Court rejected this contention. It held that once the State demonstrates a reasonable suspicion that assets may be proceeds of unlawful activity, the burden shifts to the claimant to show cause why the assets should not be forfeited.
In other words, the State’s obligation at the interim stage is relatively modest: it must present facts that objectively justify suspicion of illegality. After the interim order is granted and notice is published, any person claiming ownership must demonstrate—on the balance of probabilities—that the property was acquired through legitimate means.
The logic of this approach lies in evidentiary practicality. The circumstances of acquisition of property are usually within the peculiar knowledge of the claimant. Thus, requiring the claimant to disclose the lawful origin of the funds does not violate fairness but rather facilitates transparency in financial dealings.
Public Policy and the Anti-Graft War
Beyond procedural issues, the judgment highlights the strong public policy justification for civil forfeiture in the fight against corruption. Corruption, the court noted, poses grave socio-economic threats to the stability of any nation.
Nigeria’s experience with large-scale illicit enrichment by public officials has made asset recovery a central pillar of anti-corruption strategy. Criminal prosecution alone often proves insufficient because illicit wealth can be hidden behind corporate entities, intermediaries or complex financial arrangements. Civil forfeiture therefore provides a complementary tool that allows the State to disrupt illegal accumulation of wealth.
By affirming the forfeiture order in this case, the Supreme Court reinforced the idea that the law will prioritize public interest over private enrichment when credible suspicion of illegality exists. The decision sends a clear signal that unexplained wealth cannot easily escape judicial scrutiny.
Implications for Nigerian Jurisprudence
The decision in SC/CV/546/2024 consolidates several important principles in Nigerian forfeiture law:
- Civil forfeiture is constitutionally valid and compatible with property rights when grounded in statutory authority.
- Reasonable suspicion is sufficient to justify interim forfeiture orders.
- The evidential burden shifts to the claimant once an interim order is granted.
- Ownership alone is insufficient—claimants must prove the lawful source of acquisition.
These principles provide clarity for future asset recovery proceedings and strengthen the legal arsenal available to anti-corruption agencies.
Conclusion
Civil forfeiture may occasionally produce harsh consequences for claimants who fail to adequately explain the origins of their wealth. Yet, in a society grappling with the pervasive effects of corruption, it remains a crucial instrument for ensuring that illicit gains do not undermine national development.
The Supreme Court’s decision in Marhaba Event Place Ltd & Ors v. EFCC represents another milestone in Nigeria’s evolving jurisprudence on civil forfeiture. By affirming the confiscation of assets suspected to be proceeds of unlawful activity, the court underscored the importance of public policy in combating corruption and protecting the common good.
Fredrick Omoghene Esq.
Principal Partner
CHICELCECTRA LEGALS
chicelectralegals@gmail.com