Justice Joyce Abdulmalik of the Federal High Court in Abuja has ordered the final forfeiture of 48 properties linked to former Attorney General of the Federation and Minister of Justice, Abubakar Malami.
The judge granted the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission’s (EFCC) application after ruling that the respondents failed to rebut the reasonable suspicion that the properties were acquired through unlawful activities.
Before delivering the substantive judgment, Justice Abdulmalik dismissed several motions on notice and applications to show cause filed by Malami, his family members, and companies linked to the assets, describing them as lacking in merit. She emphasised that the core issue before the court was not ownership of the properties, but the legitimacy of the funds used to acquire them.
“The respondents have not dislodged the reasonable suspicion that the properties were acquired through unlawful activities,” the judge held. She relied principally on Section 17 of the Advance Fee Fraud and Other Fraud Related Offences Act in granting the final forfeiture order. However, she vacated the interim forfeiture order in respect of some of the properties.
The EFCC instituted civil forfeiture proceedings in January 2026, seeking the permanent forfeiture of 57 properties valued at ₦212.8 billion. The commission alleged that the assets were proceeds of unlawful activities linked to Malami. The properties are located in Abuja, Kano, Kebbi, and Kaduna states.
On January 16, 2026, during the court’s annual vacation, vacation judge Justice Emeka Nwite granted an interim forfeiture order and directed the EFCC to publish the order in a national newspaper. This invited anyone with an interest in the assets to appear in court and show cause why they should not be permanently forfeited to the Federal Government.
Following the publication, Malami, his wife Nana Hadiza Malami, his son Abdulaziz Abubakar Malami, and several linked companies filed objections.
They urged the court to dismiss the EFCC’s application and set aside the interim order, arguing that the properties were lawfully acquired. The respondents contended that the EFCC relied on speculation rather than credible evidence and failed to prove any connection to specific criminal offences.
After the Federal High Court resumed from its annual vacation, the case was reassigned to Justice Joyce Abdulmalik. At the hearing, the EFCC maintained that investigations revealed the properties were acquired with proceeds of unlawful activities and held in the names of fronts for Malami.
The commission argued that it only needed to establish “reasonable suspicion” under the law, not prove its case beyond reasonable doubt.
In late May 2026, both parties adopted their final written addresses, after which Justice Abdulmalik reserved judgment.
Faridah Abdulkadiri
Follow us on:
