By Chancel Bomadi Sunday

BOMADI — Fresh facts have emerged indicating that the recent judgment of the Federal High Court in Abuja ordering the forfeiture of funds linked to a company associated with Hon. Nicholas Mutu has not invalidated an earlier judgment by a court of coordinate jurisdiction that discharged and acquitted the lawmaker and two companies of all criminal charges filed against them by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC).

A review of court records by our correspondent showed that the two judgments arose from separate suits, were delivered by different judges and addressed distinct legal issues.

The records indicate that while the earlier judgment determined the criminal liability of Hon. Mutu and the companies after a criminal trial that lasted nearly seven years, the later proceedings involved a civil application seeking the forfeiture of funds allegedly linked to one of the companies.

On April 15, 2026, Justice F.O.G. Ogunbanjo of the Federal High Court, Abuja, discharged and acquitted Hon. Mutu, Airworld Technologies Limited and Oyien Homes Limited on all 13 counts contained in a criminal charge instituted by the Federal Government through the EFCC.

The anti-graft agency had alleged that the lawmaker and the companies were involved in transactions amounting to about ₦320 million in contravention of the Money Laundering (Prohibition) Act.

After reviewing the evidence presented by both the prosecution and defence, Justice Ogunbanjo held that the prosecution failed to prove the essential ingredients of the offences beyond reasonable doubt.

The judge ruled: “I therefore give the benefit of doubt to the defendants and find them not guilty as charged on all the 13 counts of the charge.”

The legal issues resurfaced following another judgment delivered by Justice J.O. Abdulmalik of the Federal High Court, Abuja, ordering the forfeiture of funds allegedly linked to one of the companies earlier named in the criminal proceedings.

Court records show that the two matters are legally distinct.

While Justice Ogunbanjo’s judgment arose from criminal proceedings that ended in the acquittal of Hon. Mutu and the companies, Justice Abdulmalik’s decision stemmed from separate civil forfeiture proceedings concerning funds allegedly connected to one of the corporate entities.

Sources familiar with both cases told our correspondent that a key distinction between the proceedings was the nature of the evidence considered by the courts.

According to the sources, although the EFCC tendered documentary exhibits during the forfeiture proceedings, no witness testified to identify, authenticate or defend the documents before judgment was delivered.

They noted that, unlike the criminal trial where prosecution and defence witnesses testified under oath and were cross-examined, the forfeiture proceedings were determined without viva voce evidence in support of the documentary exhibits.

By contrast, they said, the criminal trial before Justice Ogunbanjo featured oral testimony from both prosecution and defence witnesses before the court reached its decision on the merits of the case.

The review of Justice Ogunbanjo’s judgment also showed that the court found that the contracts forming the basis of the prosecution had been executed and that the payments made were for jobs carried out, rather than kickbacks as alleged by the EFCC.

Those findings formed part of the court’s reasons for concluding that the prosecution failed to prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt, leading to the discharge and acquittal of Hon. Mutu and the two companies.

Sources familiar with the later forfeiture proceedings, however, argued that those findings were not placed before the court in the civil case, which they described as being limited to determining whether the disputed funds were liable to forfeiture.

Legal practitioners familiar with the matter explained that while the earlier proceedings were aimed at establishing criminal liability beyond reasonable doubt, the later case involved a civil forfeiture application relating to funds allegedly connected with one of the companies.

According to them, a civil forfeiture order does not amount to a criminal conviction and cannot, by itself, overturn or invalidate a subsisting judgment of acquittal delivered by a court of coordinate jurisdiction.

They also observed that some public commentary following the forfeiture judgment had blurred the legal distinction between the two proceedings, creating the impression that the later ruling nullified the earlier acquittal.

Meanwhile, investigations revealed that Hon. Mutu has directed his legal team to challenge the forfeiture judgment before the Court of Appeal, where the legal issues arising from the separate proceedings are expected to be determined.