Adedokun Waliyu 
Justice Joyce Abdulmalik of the Federal High Court in Abuja has ordered the final forfeiture of more than 40 properties linked to former Attorney General of the Federation and Minister of Justice, Abubakar Malami.
The court granted the application filed by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC), holding that the respondents failed to dispel the reasonable suspicion that the properties were acquired through unlawful activities.
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.
The judge stated that the central issue before the court was not the ownership of the properties but whether the funds used to acquire them were lawfully obtained.
According to the court, the respondents failed to provide sufficient evidence to disprove the EFCC’s claim that the assets were proceeds of unlawful activities.
In reaching its decision, the court relied primarily on Section 17 of the Advance Fee Fraud and Other Fraud Related Offences Act. However, the judge set aside the interim forfeiture order in respect of some of the properties.
The EFCC had filed the civil forfeiture proceedings in January, seeking the permanent forfeiture of 57 properties valued at approximately ₦212.8 billion, alleging that they were acquired through proceeds of unlawful activities linked to Malami.
An interim forfeiture order was initially granted by Justice Emeka Nwite during the Federal High Court’s annual vacation on January 16. The court also directed the EFCC to publish the order in a national newspaper to allow anyone with an interest in the properties to appear and explain why they should not be permanently forfeited to the Federal Government.
The affected properties are located across Abuja, Kano, Kebbi and Kaduna States.
Following the publication of the interim order, Malami, his wife Nana Hadiza Malami, his son Abdulaziz Abubakar Malami and several companies associated with the properties challenged the forfeiture proceedings.
They argued that the assets were lawfully acquired and maintained that the EFCC failed to establish any connection between the properties and unlawful activities. They also contended that the anti-graft agency relied on speculation rather than credible evidence and did not identify any specific criminal offence linked to the assets.
After the court resumed from its annual vacation, the matter was reassigned to Justice Joyce Abdulmalik, who heard arguments from both parties.
The EFCC maintained that its investigation showed the properties were purchased with proceeds of unlawful activities and held in the names of individuals and companies acting as fronts for Malami. The commission argued that under the law, it only needed to establish a reasonable suspicion rather than prove criminal guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
After considering the evidence and written submissions of both parties, the court ruled in favour of the EFCC and ordered the final forfeiture of more than 40 of the disputed properties to the Federal Government.
