Court to hear final forfeiture request on 57 property linked to Malami

The Federal High Court in Abuja, on Friday, fixed April 21 to hear an application filed by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) for final forfeiture of 57 property linked to Mr Abubakar Malami, SAN, former Attorney-General of the Federation (AGF).

Justice Joyce Abdulmalik, in a ruling, also fixed the date for the hearing of the applications filed by interested parties, including Malami, to show cause while the property should not be permanently forfeited to the Federal Government.

9news Nigeria reports that a sister court, presided over by Justice Emeka Nwite, had, on Jan. 6, ordered the interim forfeiture of the 57 property suspected to be proceeds of unlawful activities to the Federal Government.

The judge made the order following an ex-parte motion, marked: FHC/ABJ/CS/20/2026, and moved by the EFCC’s lawyer, Ekele Iheanacho, SAN.

The judge directed the commission to publish the order in a national daily for interested person(s) to show cause, within 14 days, why all the property should not be permanently forfeited to the Federal Government.

The multi-billion naira landed property are located in Abuja, Kebbi, Kano and Kaduna States, including temporary and permanent sites of Rayhaan University in Kebbi.

The order was granted while Justice Nwite served as vacation judge during the Christmas/New Year break.

The case was, however, reassigned to Justice Obiora Egwuatu after the vacation ended but Egwuatu recused himself from the matter, citing personal reasons and in the interest of Justice, before it was reassigned to Abdulmalik.

Malami had since challenged the anti-graft agency’s civil suit, praying the court to vacate the order.

In a motion on notice filed on Jan. 27 on Malami’s behalf by a team of lawyers led by Joseph Daudu, SAN, the ex-AGF alleged that the anti-corruption agency got the interim order by suppression of material facts and misrepresentation.

Malami urged the court to dismiss the suit to prevent “conflicting outcomes and duplicative litigation.”

He argued that the proceeding was an assault on his fundamental right to own property, his presumption of innocence and his right to live in peace with his family.

More applicants had also joined Malami in urging the court to vacate the interim order of forfeiture.

When the case was called on Friday, Daudu urged the court to direct the EFCC to begin the matter afresh just as the judge gave the order in the criminal charge where Malami and the co-defendants were disallowed to continue to enjoy the earlier bail granted to them by Justice Nwite.

Jibrin Okutepa, SAN, who appeared for EFCC, disagreed with Daudu’s submission.

“That is not the position of the law,” he said.

Okutepa argued that what is before Justice Abdulmalik presently is the final forfeiture motion, including the various applications that were filed by interested parties, since Justice Nwite had already granted their ex-parte application.

According to him, the examples of de novo trial in criminal proceeding is inapplicable to this proceeding.

“I will urge my lord to hold that the ex-parte application that led to the order remains extant,” he said.

He said the ex-parte order was made “to commence the proceeding which is now here before my lord.”

Responding, Daudu cited a previous case involving Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan vs. Clerk of the National Assembly and three others held at Appeal Court, to back his argument.

Okutepa submitted that the case cited by Daudu was not applicable in the instant matter based on points of law and points of facts.

He said it was the granting of the order by a sister court that brought life to the case.

“My lord, the order is not spent, and I urge your lordship not to accede to that proposition,” he said.

In a short ruling, Justice Abdulmalik agreed with Okutepa’s argument.

She held that it was Justice Nwite’s ex-parte order that made the interested parties to approach the court with their applications, hence, the de novo principle was inapplicable here.

Okutepa, therefore, informed the court that their motion for final forfeiture of the property was being filed at the registry.

He said the interested parties served on them about 25 motions to show cause while the interim order should be vacated.

The lawyer urged the court to take all the applications, including their motion for final forfeiture, at once.

But Daudu disagreed with Okutepa’s submission.

He argued that in some of the applications filed, the jurisdiction of the court to hear the matter is being challenged as the suit is considered to be an abuse of court order.

The judge, in a short ruling, ordered that all the applications would be taken together.

She, however, pointed out that any application that needs to be struck out, the court would not hesitate to do so.

Justice Abdulmalik, who ordered that all processes must be filed before the hearing date, adjourned the case until April 21 for hearing of the application for final forfeiture and for other pending applications.