N2.4b ‘fraud’: Ex-PPMC boss, wife move to reclaim seized assets

FORMER Managing Director of Pipelines and Products Marketing Company (PPMC), Haruna Momoh, his wife, Ochuko Okor Momoh, and their companies have begun moves to retrieve the assets and cash the Federal Government seized from them.

The government, through the Independent Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offices Commission (ICPC), on October 25, 2019, obtained an ex parte order of interim forfeiture against Momoh, his wife and their two companies, from Justice Olukayode Adeniyi of the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory (FCT) in Apo, Abuja.

ICPC claimed, among others, that the move was part of its efforts to recover about N2,417,037,404 and landed properties, which the Momohs allegedly acquired unlawfully.

The commission also claimed that the money includes foreign and local currencies stashed in multiple accounts in four different banks as well as five landed properties in different parts of Abuja.

Momoh, his wife and their companies – Multi Trade Limited and Blaid Construction Limited – returned to court last Thursday to argue their application, with which they challenged the interim forfeiture order.

Their lawyer, Ade Adedeji (SAN), who argued the application, prayed the court to set aside the interim order of October 25, 2019, “which temporarily forfeited all the various sums in the banks listed in the order”.

Adedeji accused the ICPC of misleading the court and obtaining the forfeiture order through fraud, by allegedly withholding necessary facts from the court.

“Where it is clear that the order obtained ex parte was obtained without full disclosure and by misrepresentation of facts, the other party has a right to challenge such an order,” he said. ICPC’s lawyer Osuobeni Akponimisingha urged the court to refuse the application by the Momohs on the grounds that they were confusing issues.

He averred that the applicants disobeyed the court order and ought not to be granted audience.

The lawyer argued that they were yet to comply with an earlier order of the court, which directed them to show cause why the interim order of forfeiture should not be made permanent.