Despite a recent Federal High Court order for the forfeiture of funds linked to a company associated with Hon Nicholas Mutu Ebomo, the lawmaker's earlier acquittal on criminal charges remains valid and subsisting. The two judgements, delivered by different judges of coordinate jurisdiction, address distinct legal issues and do not invalidate one another.
Background of the Criminal Proceedings
On 15 April 2026, Justice F O G Ogunbanjo of the Federal High Court, Abuja, discharged and acquitted Hon Nicholas Mutu Ebomo, Airworld Technologies Limited, and Oyien Homes Limited on all 13 counts contained in a criminal charge instituted by the Federal Government through the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC). The anti-graft agency had alleged that the lawmaker and the companies were involved in transactions amounting to about N320 million, in alleged contravention of the Money Laundering (Prohibition) Act.
After evaluating the evidence presented by both the prosecution and the defence, Justice Ogunbanjo held that the prosecution failed to establish the essential ingredients of the offences beyond reasonable doubt. In the judgment, the court ruled: “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.”
Validity of the Acquittal
Judicial records confirm that the acquittal judgement has neither been stayed, vacated, nor set aside by the Court of Appeal or the Supreme Court. It therefore remains a valid and subsisting decision of the Federal High Court. The criminal proceedings involved a full trial lasting almost seven years, during which witnesses testified and were subjected to cross-examination before the court determined that the prosecution had failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt.
The Forfeiture Proceedings
Separately, Justice J.O. Abdulmalik of the Federal High Court, Abuja, ordered the forfeiture of funds allegedly linked to one of the companies named in the criminal proceedings. However, this forfeiture judgement arose from civil forfeiture proceedings, not a criminal trial. Court records indicate that the forfeiture proceedings were determined without the court taking oral evidence from witnesses, as is typical in non-conviction-based forfeiture applications. Although witnesses had been listed, none appeared to testify or be cross-examined before judgment was delivered.
Legal Distinction Between the Two Cases
Legal practitioners familiar with the proceedings maintain that the absence of viva voce evidence reflects the procedural nature of the forfeiture application, which differs substantially from a criminal trial. According to the lawyers, public discussions following the forfeiture judgement have blurred the distinction between the two proceedings, creating the erroneous impression that the later decision nullified the earlier acquittal. In law, a civil forfeiture order does not amount to a criminal conviction and cannot overturn a subsisting judgement of acquittal delivered by a court of coordinate jurisdiction.
Misinterpretation and Next Steps
Sources close to the matter argue that the forfeiture judgement has been widely misconstrued. They insist that the proceedings were civil in nature and should not be interpreted as a fresh finding of criminal liability against the lawmaker. Since the forfeiture proceedings principally concerned issues relating to one of the companies, the decision should not be construed as a criminal finding against Hon Mutu in his personal capacity as a serving member of the House of Representatives.
Investigations further reveal that Hon Mutu has directed his legal team to challenge the latest judgement before the Court of Appeal, where the legal issues arising from the separate proceedings are expected to be determined. Until any appellate court rules otherwise, the judgement delivered by Justice F O G Ogunbanjo on 15 April 2026, discharging and acquitting Hon Nicholas Mutu Ebomo, Airworld Technologies Limited, and Oyien Homes Limited on all 13 criminal counts, remains a valid and subsisting decision of the Federal High Court.
