Recently, there was news about the longest-serving member of the House of Representatives, Hon Nicholas Mutu Ebomo. A judge of the Federal High Court in Abuja cleared him of all charges. However, another judge from the same court ordered the forfeiture of funds related to this case.
The latest ruling from the Federal High Court in Abuja does not cancel or replace the earlier ruling that acquitted Hon Mutu and two companies. This earlier judgement freed them from all criminal charges brought by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC).
An investigation, including a look at court documents from both cases, shows that the rulings came from different suits. The first was a criminal case, and the second was about asset forfeiture. Different judges handled them, but both have similar legal powers and addressed different issues.
The review showed that the first ruling found Hon Mutu and the companies not guilty after a full trial that lasted almost seven years. The second ruling focused on a request to take funds tied to one of the companies.
Court records reveal that on April 15, 2026, Justice F O G Ogunbanjo of the Federal High Court in Abuja acquitted Hon Nicholas Mutu Ebomo, Airworld Technologies Limited, and Oyien Homes Limited of all 13 charges brought against them by the Federal Government through the EFCC.
The EFCC had accused them of being involved in transactions worth around N320 million, claiming they violated the Money Laundering (Prohibition) Act.
After looking at the evidence from both sides, Justice Ogunbanjo decided that the prosecution did not prove the charges beyond a reasonable doubt. In his ruling, the judge stated: "I therefore give the benefit of doubt to the Defendants and find them not guilty as charged on all the 13 counts of the charge."
Further checks show that the earlier ruling has not been overturned or canceled by the Court of Appeal or the Supreme Court. Therefore, it remains a valid decision from the Federal High Court.
The legal issues were also part of asset forfeiture proceedings. Another ruling by Justice J.O. Abdulmalik of the Federal High Court ordered the forfeiture of funds linked to one of the companies involved in the earlier criminal case.
However, investigations show that these two cases are legally different. Justice Ogunbanjo’s ruling came from a criminal case that cleared Hon Mutu and the companies. Justice Abdulmalik’s ruling came from separate civil forfeiture proceedings regarding funds linked to one of the companies.
Importantly, the forfeiture proceedings were decided without taking oral evidence from witnesses. This is not usually required in non-conviction-based forfeiture cases.
Court documents indicate that even though witnesses were listed, none appeared in court to testify or to be cross-examined before the judgment was made.
Legal experts familiar with the cases believe that the lack of witness testimony shows the different nature of the forfeiture application. This differs from a criminal trial where witnesses testify and are questioned before a decision is made.
They explained that the criminal case before Justice Ogunbanjo involved a complete trial where witnesses were called and questioned. The court ruled that the prosecution did not prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt.
According to the lawyers, discussions after the recent forfeiture ruling sometimes confuse the two cases. This creates a wrong impression that the later ruling canceled the earlier acquittal.
They emphasized that a civil forfeiture order does not equal a criminal conviction. It cannot overturn a valid acquittal from a court of equal power.
Sources close to the case also said that the recent ruling has been misunderstood. They insisted that the proceedings were civil and should not be seen as a new criminal finding against the lawmaker.
They also noted that since the forfeiture case mainly dealt with one of the companies, it should not be seen as a criminal finding against Hon Mutu personally as a member of the House of Representatives.
Investigations also show that Hon Mutu has asked his legal team to appeal the latest ruling in the Court of Appeal. Here, the legal matters from the separate cases are expected to be discussed.
Until any higher court says otherwise, the ruling by Justice F O G Ogunbanjo on April 15, 2026, remains valid. Hon Nicholas Mutu Ebomo, Airworld Technologies Limited, and Oyien Homes Limited are still cleared of all 13 criminal charges. That is the current situation, and the first acquittal ruling stands unless a higher court decides differently.
Drop your comment
No comments yet — be the first to drop the gist 👇