A 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.
Justice Joyce Abdulmalik granted the application filed by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC), holding that the respondents failed to dispel the reasonable suspicion that the properties were acquired with proceeds of unlawful activities.
In her judgment, the judge dismissed several motions and applications filed by Malami, members of his family, and companies associated with the properties, describing them as lacking merit.
Justice Abdulmalik stressed that the central issue before the court was not the ownership of the properties but whether the funds used to acquire them were legitimate. She held that the respondents had failed to rebut the EFCC’s allegations that the assets were obtained through unlawful means.
The court relied on Section 17 of the Advance Fee Fraud and Other Fraud Related Offences Act in making the final forfeiture order. However, the judge lifted the interim forfeiture order on some of the properties.
The EFCC had initiated the civil forfeiture proceedings in January, seeking the permanent forfeiture of 57 properties valued at about ₦212.8 billion, alleging they were proceeds of unlawful activities linked to Malami.
On January 16, during the Federal High Court’s annual vacation, Justice Emeka Nwite granted an interim forfeiture order over the assets and directed the EFCC to publish the order in a national newspaper to allow interested parties to show cause why the properties should not be permanently forfeited.
The properties are located across Abuja, Kano, Kebbi, and Kaduna states.
Following the publication, Malami, his wife Nana Hadiza Malami, his son Abdulaziz Abubakar Malami, and several companies linked to the assets challenged the interim order, arguing that the properties were lawfully acquired and that the EFCC failed to establish any connection between the assets and criminal activity.
They also contended that the commission relied on speculation rather than credible evidence and failed to identify any specific offence from which the properties were allegedly derived.
After the court resumed from its annual vacation, the case was reassigned to Justice Abdulmalik for hearing and determination.
During the proceedings, the EFCC maintained 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 in a civil forfeiture case, rather than prove its allegations beyond a reasonable doubt.
Both parties adopted their final written addresses in late May, after which the court reserved judgment. Although judgment was initially scheduled for July 6, it was postponed twice before being delivered on Wednesday.
