The Federal High Court in Abuja has ordered the final forfeiture of 48 properties, including a university, allegedly linked to former Attorney-General of the Federation (AGF), Abubakar Malami, to the Federal Government of Nigeria.
Justice Joyce Abdulmalik delivered the judgment on Wednesday after ruling that the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) successfully established that the properties were reasonably suspected to be proceeds of unlawful activities.
The court held that Malami failed to provide sufficient evidence proving that the assets were acquired through legitimate means.
Before delivering the final judgment, Justice Abdulmalik dismissed multiple applications, motions on notice, and applications to show cause filed by Malami, members of his family, and companies connected to the properties, describing the applications as lacking merit.
According to the judge, the central issue before the court was not the ownership of the properties but whether the funds used to acquire them were legally obtained.
She ruled that the respondents failed to dispel the reasonable suspicion raised by the EFCC that the assets were proceeds of unlawful activities.
The court relied on Section 17 of the Advance Fee Fraud and Other Fraud Related Offences Act in granting the final forfeiture order.
However, Justice Abdulmalik declined the EFCC's request to permanently seize nine additional properties located in Kebbi and Kaduna states. She vacated the interim forfeiture order on those assets after finding that the anti-graft agency failed to establish that they were acquired through unlawful means.
Background
The EFCC had approached the Federal High Court seeking the permanent forfeiture of 57 properties linked to the former Attorney-General, with the assets valued at approximately N212.8 billion.
On January 16, Justice Emeka Nwite granted an interim forfeiture order following an ex-parte application filed by EFCC counsel, Ekele Iheanacho (SAN).
Following the publication of the interim order, Malami, his wife Nana Hadiza, his son Abdulaziz, and several companies associated with the properties challenged the forfeiture proceedings. They argued that the assets were lawfully acquired and maintained that the EFCC failed to establish any connection between the properties and alleged unlawful activities.
Despite the objections, the court ruled that the EFCC had sufficiently justified the forfeiture of 48 of the properties, while excluding the remaining nine due to insufficient evidence.