N32.8Bn Police Pension Scam: EFCC Arrests Dangabar For Interfering With Forfeited Properties

Esai Dangabar, one of the six accused persons being prosecuted by the
Economic and Financial Crimes Commission, EFCC,on a 16 criminal
charges bordering on conspiracy and criminal breach of trust for their
role in defrauding the Police Pension Office to the tune of N32.8
Billion naira (Thirty Two Billion, Eight Hundred Million Naira), was
on Thursday December 13, 2012, arrested for interfering with the
properties which the court had ordered forfeited to the federal
government.

Among properties belonging to Esai which the court ordered forfeited
to the federal government on interim basis pending the determination
of the substantive suit are: Block of 3 Bedrooms flats at Gwarinpa (6
units), along EFAB Estate, Life Camp; a Block of Bedrooms flats (6
units) at Mabushi District, beside ministry of works; Estate of 4
Bedroom Duplexes (16 units),behind Wuye Modern Market, Abuja; a mini
Estate at No.19, Ukpabi Asika Street, Asokoro, Abuja; 12 Units of 2
bedroom Flats at 1, Waziri Ibrahim Crescent,Gudu District, Abuja; 5
Bedroom Duplexes 1, Waziri Ibrahim Crescent, Gudu District, Abuja; 4
Bedroom Bungalows at 1, Waziri Ibrahim Crescent, Gudu District, Abuja
and 2 Bedroom flat at Zone C, Apo Resettlement, layout.

Others are: 5 Blocks of One bedroom flats at Zone C, Apo Resettlement
layout, Abuja; Twin duplex of 5 bedroom & 3 rooms, 33, ML Wushishi BQ
1 Crescent, Utako, Abuja; 2 Blocks of 3 Bedroom flats, Area 3, Former
NYSC Office, Abuja; 2 Bedroom , Area 2, Abuja, Behind Shopping ,
Complex , 3 Bedroom flats , 2 Goran village, along Adi Farms Limited,
Abuja-Keffi Road; 180,000 Litres Storage Facility on a Land of about
5,000sqm, with Office Building, Workshop and 20 Loading Bay 1 Suleja,
Niger State.
Vehicles belonging to Dangabar which have been ordered forfeited to
the government pending the determination of the criminal charges
against him were seven trucks with registration numbers XH 909 RSH; XH
910 RSH; XH 912 RSH; XH 908 RSH; XH 911; XH 913 RSH and XH 460 KUJ.

Dangabar's bank accounts forfeited to the government were:two Damule
Nigeria Limited accounts with FCMB; Damule Nigeria Limited account
with MainStreet Bank; E. D. Laumara with Access Bank; three account
numbers of Essai Dangabar Laumara's with Access Bank; Laumara E.
Taure account with Skye Bank; three of AMD Global Logistics account
with Skye Bank. Two accounts of Future Logistics Limited with Skye
bank.
Three accounts of Marine Logistics & Leisure Integrated in Skye Bank.

Two Damule Nig Ltd accounts in Skye Bank.
Companies belonging to Dangabar and five others, forfeited to the EFCC
were Halas Investment Limited; At homes; Sy- A Global Services
Limited; Jidag Technical Services Limited; DamuleNigeria Limited;
Marine Logistics; AMD Global Logistics; Future Logistics Ltd; Jenago
Services Limited; H Takano Nigeria Limited;Noni Anthony System
Limited; Saudauna Enterprise limited; Ulover International Resources
Limited; Somadok Express; Kechis Water Bottling Company; Kechis Events
Managers; Kechis Straw; Kechis Plastic Extrusion company; Geopet
Petroleum Services Limited; Aina Farms: Otega Farms, Bannachi Global
Links and Comm. Co. Limited.

But Dangabar approached the Court of Appeal, Abuja division to
challenge the order of the High Court to have his properties
forfeited. The appeal court, in a unanimous ruling on July 24, 2012,
dismissed his application. In a ruling read by Justice Kolawole Bada,
the Appeal Court resolved the three issues raised by Dangabar in
favour of the EFCC. Two other justices who held the same view were
Justices Bukar Chua and Husseini Mukhtar. The court ruled that the
interim forfeiture order pending the hearing of the criminal charge
preferred against him is provided for under the EFCC Act. "The court,
having been given that power, theexercise of it has not taken away the
accused right to fair hearing", the three justices reasoned.

The court further ruled that the provisions of Section 28 and 29 ofthe
EFCC Act is validated by Section44 (2) of the 1999 Constitution and is
therefore constitutional. Additionally, the court ruled that the
presumption of innocence cannot be interpreted to allow a suspect to
retain the proceed of the alleged crime made against him. Accordingly,
the court ruled that Section 34 of the EFCC Act was substantially
complied with by the lower court. He has again proceeded to the
Supreme Court challenging the Appeal Court judgement.