Court delays ruling on EFCC bid to forfeit 57 Malami-linked properties

The Federal High Court in Abuja has stalled judgment in the forfeiture suit filed by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) against 57 properties linked to Abubakar Malami former Attorney-General of the Federation and Minister of Justice.

Justice Joyce Abdulmalik was expected to deliver judgment on Friday but could not proceed as the court did not sit.

The matter has now been adjourned until July 15.

The court had earlier fixed July 6 for judgment after counsel representing the EFCC and Malami, alongside other respondents, adopted their written arguments and concluded submissions on the forfeiture application.

The EFCC is seeking the final forfeiture of the properties, alleging that they were reasonably suspected to have been acquired through proceeds of unlawful activities.

In moving the application, EFCC counsel, Jibrin Okutepa, SAN, argued that the respondents had failed to establish that the assets were legitimately acquired.

He urged the court to order their permanent forfeiture to the Federal Government.

The application, filed in February, was supported by a 47-paragraph affidavit and 46 exhibits, according to the anti-graft agency’s counsel.

However, counsel to Malami and other respondents, Adedayo Adedeji, SAN, opposed the forfeiture request, arguing that the EFCC relied on suspicion rather than evidence to support its claims.

Adedeji said the respondents had provided explanations showing that the properties were not acquired from proceeds of crime.

He urged the court to set aside the earlier interim forfeiture order and dismiss the EFCC’s application.

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

The respondents’ counsel also challenged the EFCC’s reliance on what he described as extra-judicial evidence, saying such materials were more appropriate for criminal trial proceedings where witnesses could be cross-examined.

He maintained that some of the properties were acquired before Malami assumed public office and could not be linked to unlawful proceeds.

The court’s eventual decision will determine whether the properties remain subject to government recovery efforts or are released from the forfeiture proceedings.