BURDEN OF PROOF UNDER FORFEITURE PROCEEDING - CONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE BURDEN OF PROOF UNDER THE ADVANCE FEE FRAUD AND OTHER FRAUD RELATED OFFENCES ACT 2006,ON FORFEITURE PROCEEDINGS  

 

Gbenga Babawibe
Joined: 6 months ago
Posts: 156
12/09/2019 11:30 pm  
"Finally, I do agree with the learned counsel for the Respondent that the procedure to show cause why Appellant's money should not be finally forfeited under Section 17 of the AFF Act 2006 merely shifts the evidentiary burden of proof unto the Appellant to disprove the facts raised by the Respondent in its Motion on Notice for final forfeiture of the funds since it is the Appellant who is asserting that the funds came from legitimate source or origin.

To that extent, the provision of Section 17 of the Advance Fee Fraud and other Fraud Related Offences Act No. 14 of 2006 are neither in conflict with Section 135(1) of the Evidence Act 2011 nor with the provision of Section 36 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 as amended.

There is therefore nothing unusual or unconstitutional in the provision of Section 17 of the Advance Fee Fraud and other Fraud Related Offences Act No. 14 of 2006 imposing on the Appellant the burden of proving particular facts to wit, that the funds sought to be forfeited are not proceeds of unlawful activities." 

 

PER M. A. OWOADE, J.C.A IN TH CASE OF DAME MRS. PATIENCE IBIFAKA JONATHAN V. FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF NIGERIA :LER[2018] CA/L/578/2017 

 


Quote
Share:
Views All Time
Views All Time
219704
Views Today
Views Today
377