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 Nicholas Mutu has not invalidated or superseded an earlier judgment of a court of coordinate jurisdiction which discharged and acquitted the serving member of the House of Representatives and two companies on all criminal charges filed against them by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC).
Investigations by our correspondent, including a review of court records relating to the two proceedings, reveal that the judgments arose from separate suits, were delivered by different judges and determined distinct legal issues.
The review further showed that while the earlier judgment determined the criminal liability of Hon. Mutu and the companies after a full criminal trial spanning almost seven years, the later proceedings concerned an application for the forfeiture of funds allegedly linked to one of the companies.
Court records show that on April 15, 2026, Justice F.O.G. Ogunbanjo of the Federal High Court, Abuja, discharged and acquitted Hon. Nicholas Mutu Ebomo, 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 alleged contravention of the Money Laundering (Prohibition) Act.
However, after reviewing the evidence presented by both the prosecution and the defence, Justice Ogunbanjo held that the prosecution failed to prove the essential ingredients of the offences beyond reasonable doubt.
In the judgment, the court held:
"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 surrounding the matter 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.
Investigations, however, indicate that the two cases are legally distinct.
While Justice Ogunbanjo's judgment arose from criminal proceedings that culminated in the acquittal of Hon. Mutu and the companies, Justice Abdulmalik's decision arose from separate civil forfeiture proceedings concerning funds allegedly connected to one of the corporate entities.
Sources familiar with both proceedings told our correspondent that a major distinction between the two cases 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 was called before the court to testify, identify, authenticate or defend those documents before judgment was delivered. They maintained that, unlike the earlier criminal trial where witnesses testified under oath and were subjected to cross-examination, the court in the forfeiture proceedings did not hear viva voce evidence from any witness in support of the documentary exhibits.
They contrasted this with the criminal trial before Justice Ogunbanjo, where prosecution and defence witnesses testified in open court and were cross-examined before the court reached its decision on the merits of the case.
A review of Justice Ogunbanjo's judgment further shows that the court found that the contracts forming the basis of the prosecution had indeed been executed and that the payments made were for jobs actually carried out, not 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 and for consequently discharging and acquitting Hon. Mutu and the two companies.
Sources familiar with the subsequent forfeiture proceedings, however, contended that those findings were not placed before the court in the later civil proceedings, which they described as fundamentally different from the earlier criminal trial and limited to the issue of whether the disputed funds were liable to forfeiture.
Legal practitioners familiar with the matter explained that while the earlier proceedings were aimed at determining criminal liability beyond reasonable doubt, the later case involved a civil forfeiture application relating to funds allegedly connected with one of the companies.
They maintained that, in law, 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.
The lawyers further observed that public commentary following the recent forfeiture judgment has, in some instances, blurred the legal distinction between the two proceedings, creating the erroneous impression that the later decision nullified the earlier acquittal.
Investigations further revealed that Hon. Mutu has directed his legal team to challenge the latest judgment before the Court of Appeal, where the legal issues arising from the separate proceedings are expected to be determined.
