The Federal High Court in Abuja has ordered the final forfeiture of more than 40 properties linked to former Attorney General of the Federation and Minister of Justice, Abubakar Malami, following an application by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC).
In her ruling, Justice Joyce Abdulmalik held that the respondents failed to provide sufficient evidence to counter the EFCC’s claim that the properties were acquired through unlawful means.
Before delivering the judgment, the court dismissed several applications and motions filed by Malami, members of his family, and companies connected to the properties, describing them as “wanting in merit.”
Justice Abdulmalik clarified that the central issue before the court was not ownership of the assets but the legitimacy of the funds used to acquire them.
She stated that the respondents had “not dislodged the reasonable suspicion that the property was acquired by unlawful activities.”
The court relied on Section 17 of the Advance Fee Fraud and Other Fraud Related Offences Act in granting the final forfeiture order. However, the judge lifted the interim forfeiture order on some of the properties.
The EFCC had filed the civil forfeiture suit in January, seeking the permanent forfeiture of 57 properties valued at approximately ₦212.8 billion, alleging they were proceeds of unlawful activities linked to the former AGF.
On January 16, vacation judge Justice Emeka Nwite granted an interim forfeiture order and directed the EFCC to publish the order in a national newspaper, allowing anyone with an interest in the assets to appear before the court and show cause why the properties should not be permanently forfeited to the Federal Government.
The properties are located across Abuja, Kano, Kebbi and Kaduna states.
Following the publication of the interim order, Malami, his wife Nana Hadiza Malami, his son Abdulaziz Abubakar Malami, and several companies linked to the properties filed objections, urging the court to set aside the order.
They argued that the assets were lawfully acquired and maintained that the EFCC failed to establish any connection between the properties and unlawful activities. The respondents further contended that the commission relied on speculation rather than credible evidence and did not identify any specific criminal offence from which the assets were allegedly derived.
During the proceedings, the EFCC insisted that its investigation showed the properties were acquired with proceeds of unlawful activities and held in the names of individuals and companies acting as fronts for Malami.
The commission argued that under the law, it only needed to establish “reasonable suspicion” rather than prove the case “beyond reasonable doubt,” and urged the court to make the interim forfeiture order permanent.
After both parties adopted their final written addresses in May, Justice Abdulmalik reserved judgment. Although the ruling was initially scheduled for July 6, it was postponed twice before being delivered on Wednesday.
Discover more from LN247
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
