48 properties connected to former Attorney General of the Federation and Minister of Justice Abubakar Malami have been ordered to be permanently forfeited to the Federal Government by the Federal High Court in Abuja.
In a ruling rendered in Abuja on Wednesday, Justice Joyce Abdulmalik determined that the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission had proven the legal standard of reasonable suspicion necessary to support the asset forfeiture.
The judge determined that Malami, his relatives, and businesses associated with the properties were unable to refute the commission’s claim that the assets were obtained through illegal means.
Prior to rendering the substantive judgment, Justice Abdulmalik dismissed a number of the respondents’ applications, motions on notice, and applications to show cause, characterizing them as “wanting in merit.”
“The issue before the court is not who owns the property, but how legitimate are the funds used to acquire the property,” the judge said.
She added that the respondents had “not dislodged the reasonable suspicion that the property was acquired by unlawful activities.”
Judge Abdulmalik approved the EFCC’s request for final forfeiture based on Section 17 of the Advance Fee Fraud and Other Fraud Related Offenses Act.
For some of the property, however, the court lifted the interim forfeiture order.
In January, the anti-graft agency filed civil forfeiture proceedings to permanently seize 57 properties worth N212.8 billion, claiming they were the proceeds of illegal activities connected to the former AGF.
An interim forfeiture order over the property was granted on January 16 by vacation judge Justice Emeka Nwite, who also instructed the EFCC to publish the order in a national newspaper so that interested parties could appear before the court and explain why the assets shouldn’t be permanently forfeited to the Federal Government.
The respondents further argued that the commission relied on conjecture rather than reliable evidence, failed to identify any specific criminal offense from which the property was purportedly obtained, and failed to demonstrate that the property was the proceeds of crime.
Justice Abdulmalik was given the case to hear and decide after the court returned from its yearly vacation.
During the hearing, the EFCC’s attorney contended that investigations revealed the property was held in the names of people and businesses serving as fronts for Malami and was purchased with the proceeds of illegal activity.
