Justice Binta Nyako of a Federal High Court, Abuja, has ordered the final forfeiture of a United Kingdom (UK) property to the federal government.

The said property, located at No. 79, Randall Avenue, Neasden, London NW2 7SX, is said to belong to a former Minister of the Federal Capital Territory (FCT), the late Jeremiah Useni.

Justice Binta Nyako, made the order on Tuesday, while ruling in a motion on notice for the final forfeiture of the property moved by counsel for the Code of Conduct Bureau (CCB), Sufyan Ahmad.

The CCB, in the suit marked: FHC/ABJ/CS/2333/2025, had named the Administrators of the Estate of the late General Jeremiah Useni, the Executors of the Estate of Late General Jeremiah Useni and the Property No. 79, Randall Avenue, Neasden, London NW2 7SX as 1st to 3rd respondents respectively.

Arguing the motion, the applicant informed the court that the property sought to be forfeited is reasonably suspected to have been acquired with proceeds of unlawful activities.

According to him, Sections 7, 17, 19 and 67 of the Proceeds of Crime (Recovery and Management) Act 2022, and Sections 6 and 44 of the 1999 Constitution (as amended) gave the court the discretionary power, adding that the court granted an interim order of preservation of the said property on November 20, 2025.

The court also directed that the said order be published for persons, authority, whether corporate or otherwise, to indicate interest and file necessary process why the property should not be forfeited to the Federal Government.

Ahmad said the order had been complied with by publishing same in a Tribune Newspaper of March 4.

According to him, no persons, authority 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 subsequently urged the court to grant the relief sought in the application.

Recall that hearing in the motion for final forfeiture of the house was, on January 26, stalled due to inability of CCB to effect a proper service of the motion and hearing notice on the respondents.

The lawyer, however, filed a motion ex-parte for substituted service of the court documents and hearing notice on interested person(s) through a newspaper publication which the cover granted.

In the affidavit in support of the motion on notice for final forfeiture deposed to by a CCB’s investigator, Raji Rasaq, he said on November 28, 2025, the court granted an interim preservation order in respect of the property.

He said pursuant to the said order, his office caused a publication to be made 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.

Rasaq said since the publication, no person or entity had come forward to show cause or establish any legitimate interest in the property.

He said 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 Investigator said that the judgment further established that the “alias” used was intended to conceal the identity of the beneficial owner and suppress official documentation.

According to him, the deceased acquired the property during his tenure in public office and the circumstances strongly indicate that the funds used were from unlawful activity.

He said the CCB obtained the remuneration package for political, public and judicial officers from the Revenue Mobilisation, Allocation and Fiscal Commission (RMAFC), the agency of government responsible for determining remuneration for political, public and judicial officers for a net worth analysis of the deceased while in service, wherein it was discovered that the deceased declared income at the time was grossly insufficient to account for the acquisition of the property.

“That there is substantial ‘unexplained funds’ gap indicating that funds used for the acquisition must have come from other, undisclosed or undeclared sources.

“That this gap constitutes a strong circumstantial indicator of potential fraud/unreported income or illicit accumulation of wealth.

“That accordingly, the means of acquisition of the London property constitutes proceeds of unlawful activity,” he averred.

Alex Enumah