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, in a major victory for the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC).
Justice Joyce Abdulmalik ruled that the respondents failed to rebut the EFCC’s reasonable suspicion that the properties were acquired through unlawful activities.
The judge dismissed several applications and motions filed by Malami, members of his family and companies connected to the assets, describing them as lacking merit.
She held that the central issue before the court was not ownership of the properties but whether the funds used to acquire them were legitimate.
According to the court, the respondents failed to disprove the reasonable suspicion that the assets were proceeds of unlawful activities. Justice Abdulmalik relied on Section 17 of the Advance Fee Fraud and Other Fraud Related Offences Act in granting the final forfeiture order.
However, the court lifted the interim forfeiture order on some of the properties.
The EFCC had, in January, filed civil forfeiture proceedings seeking the permanent forfeiture of 57 properties valued at ₦212.8 billion, alleging they were acquired with proceeds of unlawful activities linked to Malami during his tenure as attorney general.
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, inviting interested parties to show cause why the assets should not be permanently forfeited to the Federal Government.
The affected properties are located in Abuja, Kano, Kebbi and Kaduna states.
Following the publication, Malami, his wife Nana Hadiza Malami, his son Abdulaziz Abubakar Malami and several companies challenged the interim order, insisting the assets were lawfully acquired.
They argued that the EFCC failed to establish any link between the properties and criminal activity, relying instead on speculation without identifying any specific offence from which the assets were allegedly derived.
In response, the EFCC maintained that its investigation showed the properties were purchased with proceeds of unlawful activities and held in the names of individuals and companies acting as fronts for Malami.
The anti-graft agency also argued that the law only required it to establish reasonable suspicion, not proof beyond reasonable doubt, in civil forfeiture proceedings.
After both parties adopted their final written addresses in May, Justice Abdulmalik reserved judgment. The ruling, initially scheduled for July 6, was postponed twice before being delivered on Wednesday.
