Court Grants ICPC Interim Forfeiture of N5.3bn Abuja Land Linked to Goodluck Jonathan Estate
In a significant move signaling tougher scrutiny of public-sector real estate deals, the Federal High Court in Abuja has granted the Independent Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Commission (ICPC) temporary forfeiture rights over two large plots of land originally earmarked for the “Goodluck Jonathan Legacy Model Housing Estate.”
The court order, handed down by Justice Mohammed Umar on Wednesday, follows an ex-parte motion filed by ICPC counsel Osuobeni Akponimisingha. The motion sought to prevent the ongoing conversion or sale of the multi-billion-naira land assets—now estimated to be worth over ₦5.3 billion—suspected to be proceeds of unlawful activity.
The assets in question are:
- Plot No. 5, Cadastral Zone D12, Kaba District, Abuja — 122,015.80m², valued at ₦1.94 billion
- Plot No. 4, Cadastral Zone D12, Kaba District, Abuja — 157,198.30m², valued at ₦3.34 billion
Together, the plots were approved under a Federal Government-backed housing scheme championed during the administration of former President Goodluck Jonathan, with financing arranged through the Federal Mortgage Bank of Nigeria (FMBN).
The Housing Dream That Became a Legal Nightmare
The seized lands were intended for the development of 962 residential housing units under the National Housing Fund scheme. The FMBN, in collaboration with a private developer—Good Earth Power Nigeria Limited—sought to actualize the estate as a model for affordable housing for low-income Nigerians.
Court filings reveal that on January 27, 2012, a framework agreement was signed between FMBN and Good Earth Power. A consultant was appointed to monitor milestones on behalf of FMBN, and the bank subsequently secured a $65 million loan from Ecobank Limited to fund the project.
However, investigations by the ICPC uncovered disturbing details:
- The entire ₦3.785 billion drawdown was paid to Good Earth Power Nigeria Ltd in November 2012.
- The developer had no proof of registration with the Real Estate Developers Association of Nigeria (REDAN)—a key precondition for participating in such projects.
- No single house has been built on the project site despite full disbursement of funds.
The anti-corruption agency also raised alarms that the company was secretly moving to sell off the lands to unsuspecting buyers—a move that would have made recovery nearly impossible.
ICPC’s Legal Grounds for Forfeiture
In its 14-point argument before the court, the ICPC insisted the project had all the hallmarks of fraud and gross mismanagement of public resources. The motion requested:
- Temporary forfeiture of the two identified plots
- Judicial permission for the ICPC to secure and prevent disposal of the lands
- A court order mandating public notice for any interested parties to show cause why the assets shouldn’t be permanently forfeited to the Federal Government
According to ICPC’s intelligence, the American-affiliated promoters of the company have since fled the country, and their whereabouts remain unknown. The commission emphasized that it was acting proactively to safeguard the national interest and ensure public assets are not looted or misused.
A Judge’s Rebuke and Warning
Justice Mohammed Umar, in granting the interim forfeiture order, questioned the rationale behind full upfront payment of the $65 million project sum with no tangible development on-site.
“The lack of evidence of value for funds disbursed is deeply troubling,” the judge stated. “This court cannot ignore the red flags.”
The matter was adjourned to October 27 for the report of compliance and further proceedings on the case.
Implications for Public Asset Management
This case once again highlights the systemic risks in public-private real estate ventures, especially when oversight, transparency, and compliance frameworks are weak. For a country grappling with a housing deficit estimated at over 20 million units, the non-delivery of 962 units under a flagship project underscores the magnitude of the challenge.
Furthermore, the forfeiture proceedings underscore a growing shift in Nigeria’s anti-corruption landscape—from chasing funds to preemptively seizing real estate assets that may be tied to illicit transactions.
It also raises bigger questions for institutions like FMBN, whose governance, due diligence, and project monitoring practices are now under the microscope.
Bottom Line:
The ICPC’s successful motion for interim forfeiture marks a legal turning point in the ongoing battle against abuse of public trust in Nigeria’s housing finance ecosystem. Whether the final forfeiture is upheld or challenged, the case could set a strong precedent for future anti-corruption enforcement around state-backed housing projects.
