By Zainab Bakare
The Federal High Court in Abuja has ordered the final forfeiture of 48 properties linked to former Attorney General of the Federation and Minister of Justice, Abubakar Malami, to the Federal Government.
Delivering judgment on Wednesday, Justice Joyce Abdulmalik ruled that the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) established the legal requirement of “reasonable suspicion” to justify the forfeiture.
The judge held that Malami, his family members and companies linked to the properties failed to disprove the EFCC’s claim that the assets were acquired with proceeds of unlawful activities.
She dismissed all applications and motions filed by the respondents, describing them as lacking merit.
Justice Abdulmalik said the key issue before the court was not who owned the properties but whether the funds used to acquire them were legitimate.
“The issue before the court is not who owns the property, but how legitimate are the funds used to acquire the property.”
Relying on Section 17 of the Advance Fee Fraud and Other Fraud Related Offences Act, the court granted the EFCC’s request for final forfeiture. However, it lifted the interim forfeiture order on some of the properties.
The EFCC had filed the civil forfeiture case in January, seeking the permanent forfeiture of 57 properties valued at about ₦212.8 billion. The commission alleged the assets were proceeds of unlawful activities linked to the former AGF.
An interim forfeiture order was granted on January 16 by Justice Emeka Nwite, who directed the EFCC to publish the order to allow interested parties to challenge it.
The affected properties are located in Abuja, Kano, Kebbi and Kaduna states.
Malami, his wife Nana Hadiza Malami, his son Abdulaziz Abubakar Malami and several companies linked to the assets challenged the interim order. They argued that the properties were lawfully acquired and said the EFCC failed to establish any connection between the assets and alleged criminal activities.
The respondents also maintained that the commission relied on speculation, failed to identify any specific criminal offence and did not prove the properties were proceeds of crime.
After the court’s annual vacation, the case was reassigned to Justice Abdulmalik. During the hearing, the EFCC argued that investigations showed the properties were acquired with proceeds of unlawful activities and held through individuals and companies acting as fronts for Malami.
The commission further argued that civil forfeiture proceedings require proof of reasonable suspicion rather than proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
After hearing final arguments in May, the court reserved judgment. The ruling, initially scheduled for July 6, was postponed twice before being delivered on Wednesday.
