Court’s adjournment stalls forfeiture of 57 properties linked to ex-AGF Malami

The Federal High Court in Abuja has adjourned judgment until July 10, 2026, in the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission’s (EFCC) application seeking the final forfeiture of 57 properties linked to Abubakar Malami (SAN), former Attorney-General of the Federation (AGF).

Justice Joyce Abdulmalik had earlier fixed July 6 for judgment after counsel to the EFCC and lawyers representing Malami and other respondents adopted their final written addresses on May 26.

However, when the matter came up on Monday, the judgment was not delivered. No reason was given for the adjournment, although three other cases on the court’s cause list were also rescheduled.

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

At the last hearing, Jibrin Okutepa (SAN), counsel to the EFCC, urged the court to grant the application, relying on a 47-paragraph affidavit and 46 documentary exhibits filed in support of the suit.

He argued that Malami and the other respondents had failed to satisfactorily demonstrate that the assets were acquired through legitimate means and urged the court to order their permanent forfeiture to the Federal Government.

Adedayo Adedeji (SAN), counsel to Malami, opposed the application, contending that the anti-graft agency’s case was based on suspicion rather than credible evidence.

He told the court that Malami had filed a 109-paragraph affidavit to show cause why the interim forfeiture order should not be made absolute, maintaining that the properties were lawfully acquired and were not proceeds of crime.

Adedeji further argued that some of the assets were acquired before Malami assumed office as Attorney-General of the Federation. He also accused the EFCC of relying on extra-judicial materials that ought to be tested during a criminal trial rather than in forfeiture proceedings.

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

Lawyers representing other individuals and companies listed as respondents also opposed the application, urging the court to reject the forfeiture request.

Justice Abdulmalik subsequently adjourned the matter until July 10 for judgment.