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 held that the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) had met the legal threshold of “reasonable suspicion” required under the law to justify the permanent forfeiture of the assets.
The court ruled that Malami, members of his family, and companies associated with the properties failed to rebut the EFCC’s allegations that the assets were acquired with proceeds of unlawful activities.
Before delivering the substantive judgment, Justice Abdulmalik dismissed several applications and motions filed by the respondents, describing them as lacking merit.
“The issue before the court is not who owns the property, but how legitimate are the funds used to acquire the property,” the judge stated, adding that the respondents failed to dislodge the reasonable suspicion surrounding the source of the assets.
Relying on Section 17 of the Advance Fee Fraud and Other Fraud Related Offences Act, the court granted the EFCC’s application for the final forfeiture of the 48 properties. However, it discharged the interim forfeiture order in respect of some other assets.
The EFCC had, in January, filed civil forfeiture proceedings seeking the permanent forfeiture of 57 properties valued at ₦212.8 billion, alleging they were proceeds of unlawful activities linked to the former Attorney General.
An interim forfeiture order was granted on January 16 by Justice Emeka Nwite, who directed the anti-graft agency to publish the order in a national newspaper, allowing interested parties to appear before the court and show cause why the assets should not be permanently forfeited.
The affected 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 properties challenged the interim forfeiture order.
They maintained that the properties were lawfully acquired, arguing that the EFCC failed to establish any connection between the assets and alleged unlawful activities. The respondents also contended that the commission relied on speculation rather than credible evidence and did not identify any specific criminal offence from which the properties were allegedly derived.
At the hearing, the EFCC argued that its investigations 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 further submitted that civil forfeiture proceedings only require proof of reasonable suspicion, not proof beyond reasonable doubt.
After adopting their final written addresses in May, both parties awaited judgment, which was initially scheduled for July 6 but was postponed twice before Justice Abdulmalik delivered the ruling on Wednesday.
Comments