A Nigerian bank has issued a stern ultimatum to the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC), demanding that it produces a missing property seized from a convicted fraudster or face legal action. Ohha Microfinance Bank Limited is accusing the anti-graft agency of failing to comply with a 2019 court order directing it to sell the confiscated asset and remit the proceeds to the bank.
The property in question is an uncompleted four-bedroom bungalow located at Centenary City, Enugu. According to the bank, the EFCC had previously identified it as one of three assets purchased with stolen funds by a convicted former bank manager, Oliver Anidiobi.
However, in a shocking turn of events, the EFCC now claims it is unable to locate the property. Frustrated by the agency’s silence, Ohha Microfinance Bank has issued a pre-action notice, warning that it will sue the EFCC and seek N100 million in damages if the missing property is not found within three months.
The notice, dated January 28, 2025 was signed by the bank’s legal representative, Olu Omotayo. The letter reiterates a February 9, 2024, petition in which the bank formally requested an investigation into the matter.
A Conviction That Led to Controversy
The missing property stems from a high-profile fraud case involving Anidiobi, a former manager at Sterling Bank, who was convicted in 2019 of diverting N219 million belonging to Ohha Microfinance Bank. Investigations revealed that he used the stolen funds to acquire multiple properties, including the now-missing four-bedroom bungalow.
The EFCC had charged Anidiobi before the Enugu High Court in case number E/162C/19, Federal Republic of Nigeria vs. Anidiobi Oliver Chukwuka. The court sentenced him to eight years in prison and ordered the forfeiture of his illegally acquired assets.
According to Ohha Microfinance Bank, the EFCC had initially taken possession of all three identified properties. However, during a follow-up inspection, agency officials shockingly claimed they could no longer locate the bungalow.
“How could a landed property recovered from a convict develop wings and disappear into thin air?” the bank asked in its pre-action notice.
The disappearance of a court-ordered exhibit has left the bank questioning the credibility of the EFCC’s enforcement process. To resolve the matter, the agency sought and obtained a court order permitting it to interview Anidiobi in prison. The goal was to have the convict assist in identifying the missing property.
Despite this, five years after the ruling, the bank claims the EFCC has failed to account for the asset.
Allegations of Fraud and Justice Denied
Ohha Microfinance Bank is not just accusing the EFCC of negligence but is also hinting at possible foul play within the agency. The bank argues that the anti-corruption body’s actions amount to a “fraudulent perversion of justice,” as they have effectively denied the bank access to its legally entitled compensation.
The bank’s legal representatives described the development as deeply troubling, stressing that EFCC officials are expected to uphold transparency and accountability.
“The bank is fed up that over five years after the conviction of the fraudster, the Commission cannot show the property, which was an exhibit tendered and reported to the court to have been seized from the convict,” the notice reads.
This is not the first time the EFCC has come under scrutiny over the handling of seized assets. Earlier this month, the agency launched a manhunt for an employee who reportedly stole over $30,000 from an exhibit room in its Kaduna Zonal office.
Legal Action Looms
If the EFCC fails to provide a satisfactory explanation within three months, Ohha Microfinance Bank has vowed to take the agency to court. The bank intends to seek multiple legal remedies, including:
- A declaration that the EFCC’s handling of the missing property is fraudulent and illegal.
- A court order compelling the agency to immediately locate and sell the property, as originally instructed.
- N100 million in damages for what the bank describes as an unjustified delay in executing the court’s judgment.
The notice also names the Attorney General of the Federation as a proposed co-defendant in the suit.
As the countdown begins, all eyes are on the EFCC to see whether it will recover the missing property or face another legal battle that could further dent its reputation.
Possible Implications
This case raises serious concerns about asset recovery in Nigeria. If a physical property can “disappear” under the EFCC’s watch, it calls into question the agency’s ability to properly manage seized assets.
