The Code of Conduct Bureau (CCB) has said a controversial United Kingdom property owned by military-era Minister of the Federal Capital Territory (FCT), the late Jeremiah Useni, has remained unclaimed weeks after a newspaper publication invited anyone with a legitimate claim to it to step forward.
The property at No. 79, Randall Avenue, Neasden, Northwest London, gained public attention last year after a reported scandalous, failed effort by senior lawyer Mike Ozekhome to claim it.
Mr Ozekhome, a Senior Advocate of Nigeria, now faces charges in Nigeria over allegations of presenting forged documents, including a Nigerian passport with the name of a fictitious personality, before a London tribunal to secure a transfer of ownership of the property to himself.
In November last year, CCB obtained an order of the Federal High Court in Abuja to freeze the property on the basis that it was shadily acquired in 1993 by Mr Useni, a retired general, who passed away in France in January 2025.
The CCB, an agency concerned with asset declaration of public officers and enforcement of other provisions of the code of conduct for public officers, ultimately aimed to secure an order of final forfeiture of the property to the federal government.
While issuing the order of interim forfeiture for the property in November last year, Federal High Court judge in Abuja, Binta Nyako, directed the publication of the order in a newspaper to invite whoever was interested in the property to come forward to prove legitimate acquisition.
‘No one came forward’
But weeks after the 14-day period lapsed, the CCB reported to the judge on Monday that “no person or entity has come forward to claim the property or establish any legitimate interest.”
CCB stated this in an application filed on 22 December 2025 through its lawyer, Sufyan Ahmad, to seek the final forfeiture of the property.
Mr Ahmed argued that the property sought to be forfeited was reasonably suspected to be proceeds of unlawful activity under Sections 17 and Section 19 of the Proceeds of Crime (Recovery and Management) Act (POCA), 2022.
The lawyer relied on the affidavit filed in support of the motion, sworn by Raji Rasaq, a CCB investigator.
The forfeiture proceedings, initiated in November 2025 by the CCB via an ex parte application for the freezing of the property, listed the administrators of the estate of the late Mr Useni, a retired general, the executors of his estate, and the property at No. 79, Randall Avenue, Neasden, London NW2 7SX, as respondents.
The affidavit recalled that the court earlier granted “an interim order for the preservation of the property on 28 November 2025 and directed that the order be published, allowing any person or authority, whether corporate or otherwise, to indicate interest and file the necessary process to show why the property should not be forfeited to the Federal Government.”
He, however, submitted that “no person or authority had indicated interest or filed any process” contesting the forfeiture.
Hearing stalled
But scheduled hearing in the suit stalled on Monday due to the CCB’s failure to properly serve the motion for final forfeiture and the hearing notice on the respondents.
CCB was represented by its lawyer, Mr Ahmad, but no lawyer appeared for the respondents.
Mr Ahmad informed the court that said the motion for final forfeiture was duly served on the respondents and the proof of service filed accordingly.
But the judge, Mrs Nyako, asked the lawyer how the court documents were served.
In response, Mr Ahmad explained that the court bailiff served it on the late Useni’s properties listed in his assets declaration form in Jos, Plateau State, but was told he was no longer there.
The lawyer said his team got the address of the deceased’s daughter in Abuja and the court documents were served on her.
The judge then asked if the daughter was the “administrator of the estate” listed on the motion on notice, and the lawyer said she was not.
When the judge also asked if Mr Ahmad was aware of Mr Useni’s will, he responded in the negative.
Mrs Nyako, who criticised the service of the documents, said Mr Ahmad should apply for substituted service so that anyone with an interest in the matter, particularly the third respondent, could join issues.
The judge subsequently adjourned the matter until 25 February for mention.
Background
The matter dated back to August 2021 when Mr Ozekhome sought to register the property in question in his name, claiming it was a gift from a man identified as Shani Tali.
The UK First‑Tier Tribunal later found the claim fraudulent, ruling that the property belonged to the late Useni and that documents used to support Mr Ozekhome’s claim were forged.
Following the UK judgement, the Independent Corrupt Practices and other related offences Commission (ICPC) opened an investigation after a petition alleged that Mr Ozekhome conspired with others to use forged Nigerian documents to claim ownership.
On 16 January, the ICPC filed three charges against Mr Ozekhome at the FCT High Court in Maitama, Abuja, alleging he unlawfully received the property, forged a Nigerian passport in Shani Tali’s name, and used it to support his claim.
The office of the Attorney-General of the Federation took over the prosecution on Monday, prompting the court to reschedule Mr Ozekhome’s arraignment to 24 February.
The AGF noted that the essence of taking over the case is to “ensure the highest level of diligent prosecution and to enhance public confidence in criminal justice administration.”
Why CCB wants final forfeiture order
In an affidavit supporting the motion for final forfeiture of the controversial property, CCB investigator Raji Rasaq, who swore it stated pursuant to the 28 November interim forfeiture order, his office caused publication to be made in a widely circulated national newspaper, inviting any person with an interest in the property to show cause within 14 days why it should not be forfeited to the Federal Government.
Mr Rasaq stated that “since the publication, no person or entity has come forward to show cause or establish any legitimate interest in the property.”
He further said that the First-Tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) of the United Kingdom, in suit REF/2023/0155, delivered a judgement confirming that the late Useni was the true owner of the property, having purchased it under a fictitious name.
According to Mr Rasaq, the judgement also established that the alias used was intended to conceal the identity of the beneficial owner and suppress official documentation.
He added that the deceased acquired the property during his tenure in public office, and the circumstances strongly indicated that the funds used were from unlawful activity.
He said the CCB obtained the remuneration package for political, public, and judicial officers from the Revenue Mobilisation, Allocation and Fiscal Commission (RMAFC), the government agency responsible for determining such salaries, to conduct a net worth analysis of the deceased while in service.
He also disclosed that a net worth analysis conducted by the Financial Investigation and Forensic Accounting Unit (FIFAU) of the CCB, using the salary scale provided by the RMAFC, found that the deceased’s declared income at the time was grossly insufficient to account for the acquisition of the property.
“There is a substantial unexplained funds gap, indicating that the funds used for the acquisition must have come from other, undisclosed, or undeclared sources.
This gap constitutes a strong circumstantial indicator of potential fraud, unreported income, or illicit accumulation of wealth. Accordingly, the means of acquisition of the London property constitutes proceeds of unlawful activity,” he stated.
READ ALSO: Corruption: We’re investigating ministers, top govt official – CCB
Mr Rasaq also noted that his office reviewed the deceased’s asset declaration forms, in which he declared ownership of the property, even though it was purchased under a fictitious name.
“The said form is already annexed as Exhibit B in the earlier application,” he said.
He concluded that there were reasonable grounds to believe the property constituted the proceeds of unlawful activity, as indicated by the FIFAU analysis, and that it would be in the overriding interest of justice for the court to grant a final forfeiture order in favour of the federal government.
