When Forfeiture Meets Oversight: The Teleology Reversal and Its Lessons for Anti-Corruption in Nigeria
In September 2025, the Federal High Court in Abuja delivered a judgment that has resonated across Nigeria’s legal and commercial landscapes. In a ruling issued on 23 September, Justice Emeka Nwite set aside an interim order forfeiting several properties belonging to Teleology Nigeria Limited, properties that had been seized by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) on the basis that they were allegedly derived from unlawful activity or constituted proceeds of crime. In doing so, the court sharply criticized the EFCC for concealing the existence of a ₦55.7 billion judgment already secured by Keystone Bank and for proceeding in a manner inconsistent with principles of fair hearing, disclosure, and jurisdiction. The case offers much to reflect on: the limits of agency powers, safeguards in forfeiture proceedings, and the delicate balance between enforcing anti-corruption laws and preserving property rights.
This article examines the background to Teleology’s dispute, analyzes the key legal issues the court confronted, situates the decision in the broader jurisprudence on forfeiture and non-conviction confiscation, and draws lessons and practical considerations for companies, regulators, and legal practitioners in Nigeria.
The Teleology–Keystone Dispute: Origins and Developments
To understand the magnitude of the judgment, one must begin with the debt owed by Teleology to Keystone Bank. In Lagos, Teleology was sued for default on a sum totaling ₦55.7 billion in suit number FHC/L/CS/297/2023, a decision in favour of Keystone Bank having been secured in 2023. Teleology appealed to that determination. Meanwhile, in a separate proceeding before the Federal High Court in Abuja, the EFCC, acting on its mandate to seize and recover property suspected to derive from unlawful activity, moved ex parte to obtain an interim forfeiture order over several properties held by Teleology. The properties included land in the Durumi District, Abuja, and certain plots in Maitama Heights, Abuja. On the EFCC’s application, without disclosing the existence of the Keystone judgment or the pending appeal, the court granted the forfeiture order purportedly in the public interest, asserting that the properties were likely tainted by misuse of loan funds and diversion.
Teleology, through counsel, challenged the forfeiture proceedings. Among its arguments was that the EFCC lacked the status to act as a debt-recovery agent for Keystone Bank; that use of loan funds for purposes other than intended does not automatically amount to a crime; and that failure to disclose material facts (namely, the existing judgment and appeal) vitiated the fairness of the ex parte application. At the hearing, Teleology relied heavily on the precedent set by Melrose General Services Ltd v EFCC & Ors (2024), where the Supreme Court held that in forfeiture proceedings, the applicant must satisfy strict requirements of disclosure and that the subject matter must fall within the sphere of money laundering or other designated offenses, not ordinary commercial disputes.
In its defense, the EFCC contended that its actions were non-conviction based and not dependent on a criminal trial. It argued that the properties in question were acquired directly or by proxies through diversion of loan funds and thus fell within the purview of the Proceeds of Crime (Recovery and Management) Act and related statutes. It denied suppressing material facts, asserting a lack of knowledge about the ongoing suit or the judgment. The EFCC urged the court to grant a final forfeiture.
Upon review, Justice Nwite found in favour of Teleology. The court held that the EFCC’s failure to disclose the Keystone judgment and pending appeal was a grave breach of procedural fairness in ex parte applications. The court pointed out that public authority cannot proceed in secret; that an applicant must lay bare all material facts so the court is not “deceived” into granting orders based only on a lopsided presentation. It was the judge’s view that by pursuing the forfeiture despite the prior judgment, EFCC risked putting Teleology in a position of double jeopardy, that is, recovering the same properties twice for the same debt. Furthermore, there was insufficient proof that the properties indeed derived from unlawful activity. The court thus rescinded the interim order and refused the application for final forfeiture.
Legal Issues Addressed by the Court
In reaching its decision, the court navigated several key legal issues: the standard for non-conviction forfeiture, the duty of disclosure in ex parte applications, the permissibility of an agency acting as a quasi-creditor, and the risk of double enforcement.
Non-Conviction Forfeiture and Its Limits
The concept of non-conviction or civil forfeiture allows for the seizure and recovery of property even without a criminal conviction, on suspicion that the property was obtained through unlawful means. This tool is often used in anti-money-laundering regimes globally to complement criminal enforcement, especially when persons evade prosecution or disappear. However, it is fraught with risks: abuse, violation of property rights, and potential injustice against innocent persons.
In Nigeria, the legislative framework for forfeiture derives from statutes such as the Proceeds of Crime (Recovery and Management) Act, the EFCC Act, and certain sections of the Central Bank Act, among others. These statutes confer powers to preserve and seize property, subject to judicial oversight. But courts have developed constraints: the applicant (e.g., EFCC) must establish a reasonable suspicion of unlawful activity, provide clear evidence linking the property to that activity, and comply strictly with procedural safeguards. The precedent in Melrose emphasizes that the court must scrutinize whether the matter is truly within the scope of money laundering or financial crime, not merely a commercial dispute dressed up in criminal garb.
In Teleology’s case, the court found the link between the properties and unlawful activity was not made out to the required standard. It reaffirmed that ordinary loan defaults or diversions for financial or contractual purposes do not automatically translate into money laundering or predicate offenses unless distinct elements of crime are established.
Duty of Full Disclosure in Ex Parte Applications
One of the most critical safeguards in ex parte applications (where only one party is heard) is the obligation on the applicant to disclose all material facts, favorable or adverse, known to it. This ensures the court is fully informed and not misled by an incomplete narrative. A cardinal principle is that a party must not “ambush” the court or suppress facts that might affect disposition.
Justice Nwite’s decision emphasized that the EFCC’s omission to disclose the Keystone judgment and its appeal constituted non-disclosure of material facts, depriving the court of a proper basis for decision. The court expressed incredulity at EFCC’s claimed ignorance and held the omission was fatal. Any ex parte order obtained on that basis must be set aside.
Agency as Quasi-Creditor: Debt vs Crime
Another contentious issue was whether the EFCC, in effect, acted as a debt collection agent for Keystone Bank. Teleology argued successfully that the EFCC has no locus to pursue recovery of bank debts, which are civil or commercial in nature, under the guise of confiscation. The court agreed, holding that where the dispute is essentially a commercial disagreement over loan repayment, the proper forum is civil litigation, not criminal enforcement.
Safeguarding Against Double Jeopardy and Overreach
The court was particularly concerned with the specter of double recovery or penalty for the same debt. Since Keystone Bank already held a judgment against Teleology, the attempt by EFCC to seize the same properties would amount to seeking the same remedy through a different legal pathway. The court called this a “double jeopardy” scenario.
By setting aside the order, the court protected Teleology from facing multiple proceedings for what is essentially the same matter. This underscores the need for coordination between criminal or confiscation processes and civil judgment enforcement.
What It Means for the Everyday Nigerian Citizen
Although the Teleology reversal revolves around a large corporate dispute, its implications ripple far beyond the boardroom. For the everyday Nigerian, the judgment reinforces a fundamental truth: the law exists to protect both the powerful and the ordinary. When courts insist that agencies act fairly, disclose facts honestly, and follow due process, they strengthen every citizen’s confidence that justice is not reserved for the elite.
Many Nigerians have witnessed arbitrary seizures, demolitions, and detentions justified in the name of anti-corruption or “public interest.” Yet, this judgment serves as a reminder that fairness and legality are the foundation of every legitimate act of government. The court’s insistence on disclosure means that if an agency must act against an individual or business, it must do so transparently and within the boundaries of law.
Moreover, the case highlights the economic dimension of justice. Investor confidence depends on predictable and lawful enforcement. When the EFCC or any authority is perceived as exceeding its powers, foreign and local investors hesitate. In contrast, when the judiciary stands firm against overreach, it signals that Nigeria remains a jurisdiction where rights are respected and contracts are enforceable, outcomes that ultimately support economic growth, job creation, and stability.
For ordinary citizens, this decision shows that the rule of law is not an abstract concept but a shield against abuse. It encourages people to challenge wrongful actions, to believe in judicial recourse, and to demand transparency from those who wield state power. In this way, the Teleology judgment, though commercial in nature, becomes a milestone for every Nigerian who values fairness and accountability.
Context: The Judiciary, Forfeiture, and Recent Trends
Teleology’s reversal slots into a broader evolving trend where courts are becoming more critical and cautious towards anti-corruption agencies’ aggressive forfeiture claims. In another recent case, the Appeal Court reversed the forfeiture of ₦71 million in a Sterling Bank matter, faulting the lower court for granting interim orders without adequately demonstrating reasonable suspicion of unlawful activity.
These developments reflect a maturing legal culture, where judicial safeguards are asserting themselves in high-stakes enforcement matters. Agencies such as EFCC must tread carefully: wielding broad powers is not unfettered, and courts seem increasingly prepared to check overreach.
Conclusion
The Teleology forfeiture reversal is more than a victory for one company; it stands as a watershed in Nigeria’s evolving interplay between anti-corruption zeal and constitutional safeguards. The ruling underscores that even with wide statutory powers, agencies like the EFCC must operate within procedural and substantive limits. Courts will not lightly accept secretive, overreaching, or under-justified seizures; the rule of law demands transparency, fairness, and fidelity to statute.
For practitioners and stakeholders, the message is clear: forfeiture laws are potent tools, but power must be tempered with accountability. Enforcement must get its case in order; those facing forfeiture must be alert to procedural lapses. As Nigeria grapples with financial crime and corruption, decisions like Teleology’s reversal help recalibrate the balance, ensuring that the fight against abuse does not itself become an abuse of power.
Latest Posts
- All Posts
- Business
- News
- News Update
- Politics
