FIRS top official, Aminu Garunbabba, forfeits two properties to FG
The Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) has secured the final forfeiture of two properties linked to Aminu Sidi Garunbabba, a senior staff member of the Federal Inland Revenue Service (FIRS), to the Federal Government.
The forfeiture was granted on Thursday, April 3, 2025, by Justice Obiora Egwuatu of the Federal High Court in Abuja.
The properties affected by the ruling include a four-bedroom terrace house with a boys’ quarter located at Barumark Groove Estate, Plot 667 Cadastral Zone BO3, Wuye District, Abuja, and another property at No. 5 Lodge Road, Kano State.
This forfeiture follows an ex-parte motion filed by the EFCC on March 16, 2022, through its counsel, Ekele Iheanacho, SAN.
A statement issued by the EFCC’s Head of Media and Publicity, Dele Oyewale, on Friday noted that the motion was filed under Section 44(2) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria and Section 17 of the Advance Fee Fraud and Other Related Offences Act, No. 14, 2006.
The court had previously issued an interim forfeiture order on February 16, 2022, which was published in a national newspaper to allow any interested parties to show cause as to why the properties should not be permanently forfeited.
During Thursday’s court session, the prosecution informed the judge that the properties were reasonably suspected to have been acquired with proceeds of unlawful activities. However, the defense raised a preliminary objection, arguing that a public officer cannot be investigated or prosecuted while an ongoing administrative disciplinary action remains unresolved.
Justice Egwuatu, after hearing both sides, dismissed the defense’s objection and granted the prosecution’s request for a final forfeiture.
“This case targets properties suspected to be proceeds of crime. The two cases are different: a criminal case requires proof beyond reasonable doubt, while in this case, only reasonable suspicion is required. Both actions can proceed simultaneously, and one does not abate the other. The parties involved are different, and the target in each case is different: one is based on proof beyond reasonable doubt, and the other on reasonable suspicion. A person cannot be allowed to benefit from illegal actions,” Justice Egwuatu stated, according to Oyewale’s report.
The judge also noted that Garunbabba failed to provide any reasonable explanation that the funds used to purchase the properties came from legitimate earnings, leading to the granting of the final forfeiture order.
