Patience Jonathan Sues SERAP, Details How She Made $15m

Patience Jonathan

Former First Lady, Mrs. Patience Jonathan, has explained how she accumulated in 15 years  $15million in several bank accounts linked to her by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC).

The explanation was given in the court papers  filed by a group that has sued  Socio-Economic Rights and Accountability Project (SERAP)  on her behalf.

SERAP had filed a suit in court to compel the Attorney-General of the Federation (AGF) to take a legal action against Mrs. Jonathan.

Union of Niger Delta Youth Organisation for Equity, Justice and Good Governance suing for themselves and on behalf of Mrs Jonathan filed a suit number FHC/L/CS/1349/2016 before a Federal High Court in Lagos,  alleging  “campaign of calumny  by SERAP against her.

According to the News Agency of Nigeria (NAN), in the documents, the plaintiff said: “The funds in question were legitimate gifts from her friends and well-wishers over the last 15 years which she had been saving in order to utilise to upgrade family businesses and concerns which had been somewhat dormant by reason of the long period of her husband service as a public officer in Nigeria.

“The gifts were given in small contributions by several persons some of whom she cannot even now recall over this period of 15 years sometimes in as small a gift as N250,000. In order to preserve the value of these funds which she did not require for any purpose at the time she changed them into foreign exchange and kept them as cash for a long period in her home safe in Port Harcourt and Abuja.

“It was when the family home in Otuoke was burnt down by hoodlums under the instigation of political adversaries in 2010 that she began to think about banking these gifts which had now grown to large sums in United States dollars. In 2010 she therefore summoned one of her husband’s domestic aides, Waripamo-Owei Emmanuel Dudafa to assist her in opening bank accounts into which the funds could be deposited.

“Unknown to her the said Dudafa in a bid to be discreet about the owner of the funds decided to bank the funds in the names of companies owned by him. When she discovered this she was constrained to continue with the names of the companies when she was advised that it did not make any difference as to the ownership of the funds since the director of the company would appoint her as sole signatory to the accounts in question.”

“When in 2016 Dudafa was arrested and detained she had no fear for the funds as she realized that the funds could not be attributable to him once it was discovered that she was the sole signatory to the said accounts. It was therefore a rude shock to her when she discovered that a no transaction order had been placed on the accounts by the EFCC in the belief that the funds belonged to Dudafa.

“She instructed her solicitors to further write to the EFCC to inform them that the funds belong to her and that they formed a part of her legitimate earnings over the last 15 years. It was this letter that was leaked by the EFCC to the media that became sensationalised and led to the plaintiff’s vilification and attack by ignorant persons who had no information about the matter.”

“SERAP is playing to the public gallery in order to gain the notoriety it has achieved over the past years. SERAP has done this mostly by intervening in high profile issues without regard to the rights of persons it claims to protect. SERAP jumped into the fray of ignorant accusations being made against Mrs. Jonathan in the public media and has begun a campaign of calumny against her using online, print and electronic media to publish to the public unfounded and malicious allegations that she stole the funds in question and ought to be prosecuted.”

 The suit accuses SERAP  of  using online, print and electronic media to publish to the public unfounded and malicious allegations that she stole $15million and ought to be prosecuted.
SERAP’s Executive Director, Adetokunbo Mumuni, said the organisation received Mrs. Jonathan’s  court papers dated October 6, 2016 from a bailiff on Tuesday

“The court papers also indicate a prayer for an order of interim injunction restraining SERAP from taking any further steps in further vilification, condemnation and conviction of the Former First Lady Mrs Dame Patience Jonathan, in all public media and in the use of the judicial process for that purpose by the extremely publicised pursuit of any application for the coercion of the Attorney General of the Federation to prosecute the plaintiff/applicant for owning legitimate private property, pending the hearing and determination of the originating summons.”

 “The suit is seeking an order directing SERAP to stay all action and to desist forthwith from proceeding against Mrs. Jonathan, with any process whatsoever, pending the hearing and determination of the originating summons.

Mumuni said: “SERAP categorically rejects these misleading and entirely unfounded accusations against us by Mrs Jonathan and her group, and we will vigorously oppose the suit in court. SERAP will never, in the discharge of its mandates, succumb to any intimidation, harassment and attacks in any way, shape or form. We are now consulting with our lawyers and will be preparing shortly our defence in court.”

“At no time did SERAP suggest or even hint that Mrs Jonathan was guilty of the allegations against her. On the contrary, what SERAP has said is that the fact that the $15m found in the four accounts belong to Mrs Jonathan raises serious suspicion or at the very least a prima-facie case of unexplained wealth/illicit enrichment, and imposes an obligation on Mrs Jonathan to explain and justify the source(s) of the $15million.”

“To be sure, SERAP is not engaged in any campaign against Mrs Jonathan or any other politically exposed persons for that matter. Our suit was filed against the Attorney General of the Federation and Minister of Justice Mr Abubakar Malami (SAN) and not Mrs. Jonathan. It’s a joke to accuse SERAP of trying to coerce the Attorney General to perform his constitutional duty, as this is for the court to decide.”