By Stephen Simon
The Federal High Court in Abuja has rescheduled judgment in the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission’s (EFCC) application seeking the final forfeiture of 57 properties allegedly linked to former Attorney-General of the Federation and Minister of Justice, Abubakar Malami, his family members and associates.
Justice Joyce Abdulmalik had initially fixed July 6 to deliver judgment after hearing arguments from the EFCC and the respondents. However, when the matter came up, the court announced that the judgment would instead be delivered on July 10, without immediately giving detailed reasons for the change in date.
The anti-graft agency is asking the court to grant a final forfeiture order over the properties, arguing that investigations showed they were acquired with proceeds of alleged unlawful activities. The commission maintained that the assets are liable to forfeiture under the provisions of relevant anti-corruption laws.
Lawyers representing Malami and the other respondents have, however, opposed the application, insisting that the properties were lawfully acquired. They urged the court to dismiss the EFCC’s request, arguing that the commission failed to establish sufficient legal grounds for the forfeiture order.
The case has attracted significant public attention because of Malami’s prominent role as Nigeria’s chief law officer under the immediate past administration. The outcome is expected to test the courts’ approach to high-profile asset recovery proceedings and reinforce the legal standards governing civil forfeiture cases.
Asset forfeiture proceedings have become one of the key strategies deployed by the EFCC in its anti-corruption campaign, with the commission frequently seeking court orders to recover assets suspected to have been acquired through illicit means pending the conclusion of criminal investigations or prosecutions.
The court is expected to deliver its judgment on the new date, a decision that could determine whether the disputed properties are permanently forfeited to the Federal Government or returned to the respondents. The ruling is also likely to influence future asset recovery cases involving politically exposed persons.
