The Federal High Court in Abuja has ordered the final forfeiture of 48 properties linked to Abubakar Malami, former Attorney-General of the Federation (AGF).
In a ruling on Wednesday, Joyce Abdulmalik, the trial judge, held that the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) was able to prove that the properties were proceeds of unlawful activities.
Before delivering the substantive judgment, the court dismissed several applications, motions and notices filed by Malami, members of his family and companies connected to the disputed assets, describing them as lacking merit.
Justice Abdulmalik held that the central issue before the court was not ownership of the properties but whether the funds used to acquire them were lawfully obtained.
“The issue before this court is not who owns the property, but how legitimate are the funds used to acquire the properties,” the judge ruled.
She further held that the respondents had failed to dislodge the EFCC’s reasonable suspicion that the assets were acquired through 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 set aside the interim forfeiture order on some of the properties, excluding them from the final order.
The EFCC had commenced the civil forfeiture proceedings in January, seeking the permanent forfeiture of 57 properties valued at about ₦212.8 billion, alleging that they were proceeds of unlawful activities linked to the former justice minister.
On January 16, during the Federal High Court’s annual vacation, Justice Emeka Nwite granted an interim forfeiture order over the assets and directed the anti-graft agency to publish the order in a national newspaper, inviting anyone with an interest in the properties to appear before the court and show cause why they should not be permanently forfeited to the Federal Government.
The affected properties are located across Abuja, Kano, Kebbi and Kaduna states.
Following the publication of the interim order, Malami, his wife, Nana Hadiza Malami, his son, Abdulaziz Abubakar Malami, and several companies linked to the properties challenged the forfeiture.
The respondents argued that the assets were lawfully acquired and contended that the EFCC failed to establish any connection between the properties and criminal activity. They also maintained that the commission relied on speculation rather than credible evidence and failed to identify any specific offence from which the assets were allegedly derived.
In response, the EFCC insisted that its investigation revealed the properties were acquired with proceeds of unlawful activities and held in the names of individuals and companies acting as fronts for the former Attorney-General.
The commission also argued that under the law governing civil forfeiture proceedings, it was only required to establish reasonable suspicion, not prove its case beyond reasonable doubt.
After hearing final arguments from both parties in May, Justice Abdulmalik reserved judgment. The ruling, initially scheduled for July 6 and later postponed twice, was eventually delivered on Wednesday, culminating in the forfeiture of more than 40 of the disputed properties to the Federal Government.
(Ripples)