ABUJA: Former Attorney General of the Federation and Minister of Justice, Abubakar Malami, has suffered a major legal setback after the Federal High Court in Abuja ordered the final forfeiture of 48 properties linked to him to the Federal Government.
Delivering judgment on Wednesday, Justice Joyce Abdulmalik held that the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) successfully established the “reasonable suspicion” required under the law to justify the permanent forfeiture of the assets.
The judge ruled that Malami, members of his family and companies connected to the properties failed to rebut the EFCC’s claims that the assets were acquired with proceeds of unlawful activities.
Before delivering the judgment, Justice Abdulmalik dismissed several applications, motions and notices filed by the respondents, describing them as lacking merit.
She stressed that the central issue before the court was not ownership of the properties but whether the money used to acquire them came from legitimate sources.
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.
Justice Abdulmalik further held that the respondents had failed to disprove the EFCC’s reasonable suspicion that the properties were obtained through unlawful means.
Invoking Section 17 of the Advance Fee Fraud and Other Fraud Related Offences Act, the court granted the anti-graft agency’s application for the final forfeiture of the assets.
However, the court discharged the interim forfeiture order in respect of some of the properties, reducing the number permanently forfeited from the 57 initially sought by the EFCC to 48.
The EFCC had instituted civil forfeiture proceedings in January, seeking the permanent forfeiture of 57 properties valued at about ₦212.8 billion, alleging they were proceeds of unlawful activities linked to the former Attorney General.
On January 16, Justice Emeka Nwite, sitting as a vacation judge, granted an interim forfeiture order and directed the commission to publish the order in a national newspaper, giving interested parties the opportunity to appear before the court and explain why the assets should not be permanently forfeited.
The properties are spread across Abuja, Kano, Kebbi and Kaduna states.
Malami, Family Opposed Application
Following the publication of the interim order, Malami, his wife Nana Hadiza Malami, his son Abdulaziz Abubakar Malami and several companies associated with the properties challenged the EFCC’s application.
They maintained that the assets were lawfully acquired and argued that the commission failed to establish any connection between the properties and alleged criminal activities.
The respondents also contended that the EFCC relied on speculation rather than credible evidence, insisting it neither identified any specific offence nor proved that the assets were proceeds of crime.
During the hearing, counsel for the EFCC argued that investigations revealed the properties were purchased with proceeds of unlawful activities and registered inCourt Orders Final Forfeiture of 48 Properties Linked to Ex-AGF MalamiJustice Joyce Abdulmalik rules EFCC met legal threshold for permanent seizure as former AGF and family fail to prove assets were lawfully acquired.
Former Attorney General of the Federation and Minister of Justice, Abubakar Malami, has suffered a major legal setback after the Federal High Court in Abuja ordered the final forfeiture of 48 properties linked to him to the Federal Government.
Delivering judgment on Wednesday, Justice Joyce Abdulmalik held that the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) successfully established the “reasonable suspicion” required under the law to justify the permanent forfeiture of the assets.
The judge ruled that Malami, members of his family and companies connected to the properties failed to rebut the EFCC’s claims that the assets were acquired with proceeds of unlawful activities.
Before delivering the judgment, Justice Abdulmalik dismissed several applications, motions and notices filed by the respondents, describing them as lacking merit.
She stressed that the central issue before the court was not ownership of the properties but whether the money used to acquire them came from legitimate sources.
“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.
Justice Abdulmalik further held that the respondents had failed to disprove the EFCC’s reasonable suspicion that the properties were obtained through unlawful means.
Invoking Section 17 of the Advance Fee Fraud and Other Fraud Related Offences Act, the court granted the anti-graft agency’s application for the final forfeiture of the assets.
However, the court discharged the interim forfeiture order in respect of some of the properties, reducing the number permanently forfeited from the 57 initially sought by the EFCC to 48.
The EFCC had instituted civil forfeiture proceedings in January, seeking the permanent forfeiture of 57 properties valued at about ₦212.8 billion, alleging they were proceeds of unlawful activities linked to the former Attorney General.
On January 16, Justice Emeka Nwite, sitting as a vacation judge, granted an interim forfeiture order and directed the commission to publish the order in a national newspaper, giving interested parties the opportunity to appear before the court and explain why the assets should not be permanently forfeited.
The properties are spread across Abuja, Kano, Kebbi and Kaduna states.
Malami, Family Opposed Application
Following the publication of the interim order, Malami, his wife Nana Hadiza Malami, his son Abdulaziz Abubakar Malami and several companies associated with the properties challenged the EFCC’s application.
They maintained that the assets were lawfully acquired and argued that the commission failed to establish any connection between the properties and alleged criminal activities.
The respondents also contended that the EFCC relied on speculation rather than credible evidence, insisting it neither identified any specific offence nor proved that the assets were proceeds of crime.
During the hearing, counsel for the EFCC argued that investigations revealed the properties were purchased with proceeds of unlawful activities and registered in the names of individuals and companies allegedly acting as fronts for Malami.
The commission further argued that civil forfeiture proceedings require proof of reasonable suspicion rather than proof beyond reasonable doubt.
After both parties adopted their final written addresses in May, Justice Abdulmalik reserved judgment.
Although the ruling was initially scheduled for July 6, it was postponed twice before being delivered on Wednesday.
The judgment marks one of the EFCC’s most significant civil asset recovery victories involving a former senior government official and reinforces the legal principle that the legitimacy of the source of funds used to acquire assets—not merely ownership—is the determining factor in civil forfeiture proceedings.
Writing code? Meet Codex in the desktop app
Pair with Codex in your t the names of individuals and companies allegedly acting as fronts for Malami.
The commission further argued that civil forfeiture proceedings require proof of reasonable suspicion rather than proof beyond reasonable doubt.
After both parties adopted their final written addresses in May, Justice Abdulmalik reserved judgment.
Although the ruling was initially scheduled for July 6, it was postponed twice before being delivered on Wednesday.
The judgment marks one of the EFCC’s most significant civil asset recovery victories involving a former senior government official and reinforces the legal principle that the legitimacy of the source of funds used to acquire assets—not merely ownership—is the determining factor in civil forfeiture proceedings.
