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, to the Federal Government.
Justice Joyce Abdulmalik delivered the ruling on Wednesday after granting an application filed by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC), holding that the respondents failed to rebut the reasonable suspicion that the assets were acquired through unlawful activities.
Before delivering judgment, the court dismissed several applications filed by Malami, members of his family and companies linked to the properties, describing them as lacking merit.
Justice Abdulmalik held that the key issue before the court was not the ownership of 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 properties,” the judge said.
The judge further ruled that the respondents failed to dislodge the reasonable suspicion that the properties were proceeds of unlawful activities.
The court relied on Section 17 of the Advance Fee Fraud and Other Fraud Related Offences Act in making the final forfeiture order. However, it set aside the interim forfeiture order in respect of some of the properties.
The EFCC had initiated the civil forfeiture proceedings in January, seeking the permanent forfeiture of 57 properties valued at N212.8 billion, which it alleged were acquired with proceeds of unlawful activities linked to Malami.
On January 16, during the court’s annual vacation, Justice Emeka Nwite granted an interim forfeiture order over the assets and directed the anti-graft agency to publish the order in a national newspaper, inviting interested parties to show cause why the properties should not be permanently forfeited to the Federal Government.
Following the publication, 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 interim forfeiture order.
The respondents maintained that the properties were lawfully acquired, arguing that the EFCC failed to establish any connection between the assets and unlawful activities. They also 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.
After the court resumed from its annual vacation, the matter was reassigned to Justice Abdulmalik for hearing and determination.
At the hearing, the EFCC argued that its investigation revealed the properties were acquired with proceeds of unlawful activities and held in the names of individuals and companies acting as fronts for the former Attorney General.
The commission further submitted that under the law, it was only required to establish reasonable suspicion, not prove the allegations beyond reasonable doubt, and urged the court to make the interim forfeiture order permanent.
After both parties adopted their final written addresses in May, the court reserved judgment. Although the judgment was initially scheduled for July 6, it was postponed twice before Justice Abdulmalik delivered the final ruling on Wednesday.
