A Federal High Court in Abuja on Wednesday ordered the final forfeiture of 48 properties, including a university, allegedly linked to former Attorney-General of the Federation (AGF), Abubakar Malami, to the Federal Government.
Delivering judgment, Justice Joyce Abdulmalik held that the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) successfully established that the assets were reasonably suspected to be proceeds of unlawful activities.
The judge ruled that Malami failed to demonstrate that the properties were acquired through legitimate sources of income.
Before delivering the judgment, Justice Abdulmalik dismissed several applications, motions and objections filed by Malami, members of his family and companies linked to the properties, describing them as lacking merit.
She held that the central issue before the court was not ownership of the assets but whether the funds used to acquire them were lawfully obtained.
“The issue is not who owns the properties, but how legitimate are the funds used to acquire the properties,” the judge ruled, adding that the respondents failed to rebut the reasonable suspicion that the assets were proceeds of unlawful activities.
Relying on Section 17 of the Advance Fee Fraud and Other Fraud Related Offenses Act, the court granted the EFCC’s request for the final forfeiture of the 48 properties.
However, Justice Abdulmalik declined the commission’s request in respect of nine other properties located in Kebbi and Kaduna states, setting aside the interim forfeiture order after ruling that the EFCC failed to prove they were acquired through unlawful means.
The EFCC had sought the permanent forfeiture of 57 properties valued at about N212.8 billion, alleging they were proceeds of unlawful activities.
Justice Emeka Nwite had, on January 16, granted an interim forfeiture order after EFCC counsel, Ekele Iheanacho (SAN), moved an ex parte application.
Following the publication of the interim order, Malami, his wife, Nana Hadiza, his son, Abdulaziz, and several companies linked to the assets filed objections, urging the court to set aside the order.
They argued that the properties were lawfully acquired and maintained that the EFCC failed to establish any nexus between the assets and alleged criminal activities.
With Wednesday’s ruling, the court upheld the EFCC’s case on 48 of the 57 properties, while excluding nine assets from the forfeiture order.
