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.
Justice Joyce Abdulmalik granted the application filed by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission, EFCC, after ruling that Malami and other claimants failed to prove that the properties were acquired through legitimate means.
Before delivering the judgment, the court dismissed several applications, motions, and objections filed by Malami, members of his family, and companies claiming ownership of the assets, describing them as lacking merit.
Justice Abdulmalik held 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.
According to the judge, the respondents failed to rebut the reasonable suspicion that the assets were acquired through 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, while also vacating the interim forfeiture order on some of the properties.
The EFCC had initially sought the permanent forfeiture of 57 properties valued at N212.8 billion, alleging they were proceeds of unlawful activities linked to Malami.
The court clarified that the forfeiture order does not amount to a criminal conviction or a finding of guilt against Malami or any other individual, noting that separate criminal charges involving alleged illicit acquisition of funds remain before the court.
The anti graft agency filed the civil forfeiture proceedings in January, after which Justice Emeka Nwite granted an interim forfeiture order during the Federal High Court’s annual vacation.
The court had directed the EFCC to publish the order in a national newspaper to allow interested parties to show cause why the assets should not be permanently forfeited.
Following the publication, Malami, his wife Nana Hadiza Malami, his son Abdulaziz Abubakar Malami, and several companies linked to the properties filed objections, all of which were dismissed by the court before the final ruling.
