False Asset Declaration: Supreme Court Dismisses FG’s Appeal Against Ex-Minister, Orubebe

In a decisive ruling on Friday, the Supreme Court dismissed the Federal Government’s appeal against the Court of Appeal’s verdict, which had exonerated the former Minister of Niger Delta Affairs, Godsday Orubebe, of charges related to false asset declaration.

Orubebe had been embroiled in legal battles since 2015 when he was accused of failing to disclose ownership of certain properties on the asset declaration forms submitted to the Code of Conduct Bureau (CCB) during his tenure from 2007 to 2011.

The charges against Orubebe were based on Section 15 of the Code of Conduct Bureau and Tribunal Act Cap 15 Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 2004, with potential penalties under Section 23(2) of the same Act.

Despite these serious allegations, Orubebe maintained his innocence, pleading not guilty to the accusations leveled against him.

Orubebe’s defense centered on the claim that he had sold the contested plot of land to his landlord prior to his last asset declaration upon leaving office, thereby arguing that it was no longer his asset to declare in 2011.

However, the Code of Conduct Tribunal initially ruled against him, ordering that the property he failed to declare be forfeited to the Federal Government.

Unsatisfied with the Tribunal’s judgment, Orubebe took his case to the Court of Appeal, which overturned the Tribunal’s decision, clearing him of the conviction and the order of asset forfeiture.

In response, the Federal Government sought to challenge the appellate court’s verdict by elevating the matter to the Supreme Court.

The apex court, led by Justice Emmanuel Agim, delivered the lead judgment, declaring the Federal Government’s appeal as incompetent and thereby upholding the Court of Appeal’s decision to acquit Orubebe.

This ruling marks the conclusion of a legal saga that has spanned several years, affirming Orubebe’s position and providing a significant precedent in cases of asset declaration and public accountability.

He said, “The appeal is incompetent. Prior leave of court was not obtained to file a mixed fact of law. It is hereby struck out.“