A Federal High Court in Abuja has ordered the permanent forfeiture of more than 40 properties allegedly linked to former Attorney General of the Federation and Minister of Justice, Abubakar Malami.
Delivering judgment, Justice Joyce Abdulmalik granted the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission’s (EFCC) application, holding that the affected parties failed to dispel the commission’s claim that the assets were acquired with the proceeds of unlawful activities.
Before the ruling, the judge dismissed all pending applications and objections filed by Malami, members of his family, and companies connected to the properties on the ground that they lacked merit.
Justice Abdulmalik said the central issue before the court was not the ownership of the properties, but whether the funds used to acquire them came from legitimate sources. The trial judge held that the respondents failed to counter the EFCC’s reasonable suspicion that the assets were proceeds of unlawful conduct.
Relying on Section 17 of the Advance Fee Fraud and Other Fraud Related Offences Act, the court ordered the final forfeiture of the properties to the Federal Government.
However, the judge discharged the interim forfeiture order in respect of some of the assets.
The EFCC commenced the civil forfeiture proceedings in January, seeking the permanent forfeiture of 57 properties valued at about ₦212.8 billion.
The anti-graft agency alleged that the assets, located in Abuja, Kano, Kebbi, and Kaduna states, were acquired through illicit means and linked to the former justice minister.
An interim forfeiture order was initially granted by Justice Emeka Nwite during the court’s annual vacation, with a directive that the order be published to enable interested parties to challenge the action.
Malami and others subsequently filed objections, insisting the properties were lawfully acquired.
They argued that the EFCC failed to establish any criminal offence connected to the assets and relied on speculation rather than credible evidence.
After the matter was reassigned to Justice Abdulmalik, the EFCC maintained that its investigation showed the properties were held through individuals and companies acting as fronts for Malami.
The commission argued that the law only required it to establish reasonable suspicion, not proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
(Editor: Ada Ononye)
