The Federal High Court sitting in Abuja has set aside the interim forfeiture order previously granted against properties belonging to Teleology Nigeria Limited. In doing so, the court also reprimanded the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) for failing to disclose a subsisting ₦55 billion judgment obtained by Keystone Bank against the company, as well as the existence of a pending appeal.
Delivering judgment on September 23, 2025, Justice Emeka Nwite held that the EFCC lacked the legal authority to pursue recovery of Keystone Bank’s loans by alleging that Teleology acquired its assets through unlawful activities or proceeds of crime. The court stressed that such recovery falls outside the statutory mandate of the Commission.
The judge specifically refused EFCC’s application for final forfeiture, ruling that the identified properties — Plot 467, Cadastral Zone, Durumi District, Abuja; MH 401, Maitama Heights, Plot 47, Maitama District, Abuja; and MH 601, Maitama Heights, Plot 47, Maitama District, Abuja — were not shown to have been acquired from criminal proceeds.
It will be recalled that on August 27, 2024, the EFCC had secured an interim order from the same court forfeiting the properties “to Keystone Bank Plc through the Federal Government of Nigeria,” on the basis of alleged diversion of loan funds and suspected unlawful activities.
Teleology, through its counsel, Femi Atteh SAN, challenged the order, accusing the EFCC of misrepresentation. The senior advocate argued that the Commission is not a debt recovery agency and cannot lawfully seek forfeiture of private entities’ properties on the basis of commercial loan defaults. He further submitted that the mere use of loan funds for purposes other than intended does not constitute a criminal offence under Nigerian law.
Atteh also alleged that the EFCC was acting at the behest of adversaries seeking to take control of Emerging Markets Telecommunication Services Ltd. (9mobile). He pointed out that Keystone Bank had already secured a ₦55.7 billion judgment against Teleology in Lagos, which is currently under appeal, and insisted that the Commission was aware of these facts.
In response, EFCC’s counsel, Faruk Abdullahi Esq., maintained that the forfeiture proceedings were non‑conviction‑based and targeted the properties themselves. He argued that the loan was allegedly obtained through proxies without collateral, suggesting possible money laundering. He denied any suppression of material facts and urged the court to grant final forfeiture.
Justice Nwite, however, faulted the EFCC for failing to disclose the Keystone Bank judgment and pending appeal, describing its claim of ignorance as “watery” and lacking sincerity. He emphasised that an applicant for an ex parte order owes the court a duty of full disclosure, and that the Commission, as a law enforcement agency, must exercise due diligence before seeking such orders.
Concluding, the court held that EFCC’s actions amounted to subjecting Teleology to double jeopardy, since Keystone Bank had already obtained judgment for the loan. Justice Nwite therefore set aside the interim forfeiture order, refused the application for final forfeiture, and affirmed that the properties in question were not acquired from unlawful activities or proceeds of crime.
