The Federal High Court in Abuja has postponed judgment in the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission’s (EFCC) forfeiture suit seeking to permanently seize 57 properties linked to former Attorney-General of the Federation and Minister of Justice, Abubakar Malami.
The judgment, which was scheduled for Friday before Justice Joyce Abdulmalik, was adjourned to July 15 after the judge did not sit.
The News Agency of Nigeria (NAN) reports that Justice Abdulmalik had earlier fixed July 6 for judgment after hearing final arguments from counsel to the parties.
At the last sitting, EFCC counsel, Jibrin Okutepa (SAN), and counsel to Malami and other respondents, Adedayo Adedeji (SAN), adopted their written processes and presented arguments for and against the commission’s application for final forfeiture.
The EFCC is asking the court to order the permanent forfeiture of the 57 properties, alleging they are reasonably suspected to be proceeds of unlawful activities.
Arguing the application, Okutepa said the motion, filed in February, was supported by a 47-paragraph affidavit and 46 exhibits contained in three volumes.
He urged the court to grant the application, insisting that Malami and the other respondents had failed to demonstrate that the properties were acquired through legitimate means.
According to him, the respondents had “woefully failed to show cause” why the assets should not be permanently forfeited to the Federal Government.
Opposing the application, Adedeji said Malami filed a 109-paragraph counter-affidavit on February 27 to show why the forfeiture order should not be granted.
The senior advocate urged the court to set aside the interim forfeiture order and hold that the respondents had sufficiently established that the properties were not proceeds of crime.
He argued that the EFCC’s case was based solely on suspicion rather than credible evidence.
“The court deals with evidence, not suspicion,” Adedeji submitted.
He further contended that the anti-graft agency relied on extra-judicial statements that should ordinarily be tested during a criminal trial through cross-examination, insisting that such materials were insufficient to sustain the forfeiture proceedings.
Adedeji also argued that several of the properties were acquired before Malami assumed office as Attorney-General, making the EFCC’s allegations untenable.
In addition, he adopted separate counter-affidavits and further affidavits filed on behalf of other respondents and companies joined in the suit, urging the court to dismiss the EFCC’s application for final forfeiture.
