Court Gives Judgment In Malami’s Properties Forfeiture Case July 10

The Federal High Court in Abuja has postponed judgment in the forfeiture case filed by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) seeking to permanently seize 57 properties allegedly linked to former Attorney-General of the Federation, Abubakar Malami (SAN).

Justice Joyce Abdulmalik, who had earlier fixed Monday for judgment after hearing final arguments from all parties, adjourned the matter until July 10.

The case, which was listed as number four on the court’s cause list, did not proceed as scheduled. No reason was given for the postponement, although three other matters out of the 13 cases slated before the court were also rescheduled.

The EFCC is asking the court to order the final forfeiture of the properties, arguing that they are reasonably suspected to be proceeds of unlawful activities.

At the previous hearing on May 26, EFCC counsel, Jibrin Okutepa (SAN), adopted the commission’s motion for final forfeiture, which was filed in February and backed by a 47-paragraph affidavit and 46 exhibits contained in three volumes.

Okutepa urged the court to grant the application, arguing that Malami and the other respondents had failed to provide credible evidence showing that the properties were lawfully acquired.

He asked the court to order that the assets be permanently forfeited to the Federal Government.

However, counsel to Malami, Adedayo Adedeji (SAN), opposed the application, relying on a 109-paragraph counter-affidavit personally deposed to by the former AGF.

He urged the court to set aside the interim forfeiture order and dismiss the EFCC’s application, insisting that the respondents had demonstrated that the properties were not proceeds of crime.

Adedeji argued that the anti-graft agency based its case largely on suspicion rather than concrete evidence.

“The court deals with evidence, not suspicion,” he told the court.

He further contended that the EFCC relied on extra-judicial statements that should ordinarily be tested during cross-examination in a criminal trial, adding that the absence of oral evidence made it impossible for the court to properly determine the issues in dispute.

According to him, some of the properties in question were acquired before Malami became Attorney-General, making the commission’s allegations untenable.

Other lawyers representing individuals and companies joined in opposing the forfeiture request, urging the court to dismiss the application in the interest of justice.

Following the adoption of all processes and arguments, Justice Abdulmalik had reserved judgment, but the decision has now been shifted to July 10.