The Court of Appeal, Lagos Division, has reinstated a preservation order on 14 properties and the sum of N400 million linked to former Kogi State Governor Yahaya Bello. The ruling, delivered on Wednesday, August 6, 2025, overturns an earlier decision by the Federal High Court which struck out the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission\'s (EFCC) suit on the grounds of constitutional immunity.

Justice Nicholas Oweibo of the Federal High Court in Lagos had initially granted the preservation order on February 22, 2023, following an application by the EFCC. The assets in question include high-value properties, notably a luxury hotel apartment in Burj Khalifa, Dubai, as well as funds suspected to be proceeds of unlawful activity. The order was made under Sections 9 and 10 of the Proceeds of Crime (Recovery and Management) Act, 2022.

However, on April 26, 2023, the trial court struck out the EFCC’s suit seeking the final forfeiture of the assets, ruling that Yahaya Bello, being a sitting governor at the time, was shielded by constitutional immunity as provided in Section 308 of the 1999 Constitution.

Unhappy with the decision, the EFCC, represented by Senior Advocate of Nigeria Rotimi Oyedepo and a team of lawyers, challenged the ruling at the appellate court. The Commission argued that the trial judge misinterpreted the scope of the immunity clause, stressing that it does not protect assets linked to criminal activity.

Citing legal precedents such as EFCC v. Fayose (2018) and Fawehinmi v. IGP (2002), the EFCC contended that immunity under Section 308 only protects a sitting governor from civil or criminal prosecution and not from investigations or actions concerning illicit assets.

Delivering the lead judgment, Justice Nimpar B. Yargata agreed with the EFCC’s submissions and held that the trial court erred by striking out the preservation order despite acknowledging that Bello failed to prove the legitimate source of the funds used to acquire the properties.

The Court of Appeal panel concluded that the immunity clause had been wrongly applied and ordered the immediate restoration of the preservation order. The panel also directed that the case for final forfeiture of the assets should proceed in line with the law.