Court Orders Final Forfeiture of 48 Properties Linked to Ex-AGF Malami
The Federal High Court in Abuja has ordered the permanent 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 ruled that the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) had established the legal threshold of “reasonable suspicion” required to justify the forfeiture under Nigeria’s civil forfeiture laws.
The court held that Malami, his family members and companies connected to the properties failed to provide sufficient evidence to counter the EFCC’s claim that the assets were acquired with proceeds of unlawful activities.
Justice Abdulmalik also dismissed several applications and objections filed by the respondents, describing them as lacking merit. She clarified that the central issue before the court was not the ownership of the properties but whether the funds used to acquire them were lawfully obtained.
Relying on Section 17 of the Advance Fee Fraud and Other Fraud Related Offences Act, the court granted the EFCC’s request for final forfeiture of the affected assets. However, the judge lifted the interim forfeiture order on some of the properties that were not covered by the final ruling.
The EFCC had in January sought the permanent forfeiture of 57 properties valued at about ₦212.8 billion, alleging they were proceeds of unlawful activities linked to the former AGF. An interim forfeiture order was initially granted, after which Malami, his wife Nana Hadiza Malami, his son Abdulaziz Abubakar Malami, and several companies challenged the action, insisting the properties were lawfully acquired.
The respondents argued that the anti-graft agency failed to establish any direct link between the assets and any criminal offence, maintaining that the case was based on speculation rather than credible evidence.
During the proceedings, the EFCC maintained that investigations showed the properties were acquired through unlawful proceeds and held in the names of individuals and companies acting as fronts for Malami. The commission further argued that civil forfeiture proceedings only require proof of reasonable suspicion, not proof beyond reasonable doubt.
After considering the arguments of both parties, the court delivered its judgment, bringing the long-running civil forfeiture case to a close.
