The Federal High Court in Kaduna has ordered the interim forfeiture of N1.37 billion, which was allegedly diverted from the Kaduna State Government’s coffers to an hidden Sterling Bank account with no proper documentation during the tenure of former Governor Nasir El-Rufai. The court ruling followed an ex parte application filed by the Independent Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Commission (ICPC).
Justice H. Buhari granted the forfeiture order on February 28, directing that the funds, allegedly siphoned from the state’s budget for a failed light rail project, be temporarily forfeited. The judge further ordered the ICPC to publish a notice in two national newspapers to invite any interested parties to claim ownership of the funds and justify why it should not be permanently forfeited to the federal government.
The ICPC’s legal representative, E.O. Akponimisingha, had argued that the funds were originally allocated for a light rail system meant to improve transportation in Kaduna State. However, the project never materialized, depriving residents of the expected benefits. “The money was meant for public infrastructure, but instead, it was diverted into private hands,” Akponimisingha told the court.
According to the ICPC, the funds were funneled through Indo Kaduna MRTS JV Nig. Ltd., a joint venture company set up by the Kaduna State Government and Indian businesspeople in 2016. Despite being a public-private partnership, the entity allegedly served as a conduit for siphoning state funds.
One of the commission’s key findings was that the company had not been officially incorporated by the Corporate Affairs Commission (CAC) when the Kaduna State Government began transferring funds to it. The ICPC investigation revealed that Governor El-Rufai approved the payment of N11.1 billion between December 2016 and January 2017, even though Indo Kaduna MRTS JV Nig. Ltd. was not formally registered until May 10, 2017.
The commission tracked N1.37 billion of the total funds to a private account, prompting the legal action for its forfeiture. ICPC Chairman Musa Aliyu defended the move, stating that reclaiming the money would serve the broader public interest. “This forfeiture order aligns with the principles of good governance and accountability,” Aliyu stated.
The legal process began after the ICPC received a petition from M. Yahaya, a lawyer at NUS’ AB Chambers, Abuja. The petition, dated June 27, 2024, and received by the ICPC on July 1, 2024, accused officials from El-Rufai’s administration of large-scale financial misappropriation.
As part of a broader investigation into financial irregularities, some former Kaduna State officials are already facing legal proceedings before the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC), the ICPC, the Code of Conduct Bureau, and the Code of Conduct Tribunal. These cases focus on various allegations of fraud, abuse of office, and financial misconduct.
The Kaduna State Government has also launched its own internal investigations into corruption allegations linked to the El-Rufai administration. Some of his former aides are under scrutiny for mismanagement of public funds, though they have denied any wrongdoing.
Former Governor El-Rufai, who served from 2015 to 2023, has strongly refuted the allegations against him and his administration. He described the ongoing probes as a politically motivated attempt to tarnish his legacy. “This is nothing but a witch hunt,” El-Rufai stated. “It is a deliberate effort to discredit our achievements and mislead the public.”
El-Rufai’s associates have echoed his sentiments, insisting that the funds were properly allocated and that the ICPC’s move is an overreach. In a joint statement, they condemned the forfeiture order, arguing that it could discourage foreign direct investment in Nigeria. “This is sheer oppression and abuse of power,” the statement read. “Targeting legitimate business ventures in this manner will only drive away investors.”
Despite these objections, the court has scheduled further proceedings for April 8. This hearing will allow any claimants to present their case and argue against the permanent forfeiture of the funds.
