Former Attorney-General of the Federation, Abubakar Malami, has approached the Federal High Court in Abuja to challenge the interim forfeiture of some properties seized by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC), describing the action as unlawful and misleading.
The legal challenge follows a court order issued on January 6 by Justice Emeka Nwite, which authorised the interim forfeiture of 57 properties suspected to be proceeds of illegal activities. The properties were allegedly linked to Malami and two of his sons, Abdulaziz and Abiru Rahman Malami.
The EFCC told the court that the properties, which are located across different parts of the country, have an estimated value of N213.2 billion. The commission obtained the order through an ex parte application, arguing that the assets were reasonably suspected to have been acquired through unlawful means.
In granting the order, Justice Nwite directed that the properties be temporarily forfeited to the Federal Government and instructed the EFCC to publish the forfeiture notice in a national newspaper. Interested parties were also given 14 days to appear before the court and show cause why the forfeiture should not be made permanent.
However, in a motion on notice filed on January 27, Malami, through his legal team led by senior advocate Joseph Daudu, accused the EFCC of suppressing material facts and misleading the court to obtain the interim order.
Malami urged the court to dismiss the suit, arguing that the forfeiture proceedings violate his constitutional rights to property, presumption of innocence, and family life. He also warned that the action could result in duplicative litigation and conflicting court decisions.
The former AGF specifically challenged the forfeiture of three properties listed as numbers 9, 18, and 48 in the EFCC’s application. These include a property at Plot 157, Lamido Crescent, Nasarawa GRA, Kano, purchased in July 2019; a bedroom duplex with boys’ quarters at No. 12, Yalinga Street, off Adetokunbo Ademola Crescent, Wuse II, Abuja, acquired in October 2018 for N150 million; and the ADC Kadi Malami Foundation Building, bought for N56 million.
Malami is asking the court to set aside the interim forfeiture order as it affects the three properties and to restrain the EFCC from interfering with his ownership and control of them. He also argued that one of the properties is held in trust for the estate of his late father, Kadi Malami.
In a 14-ground argument, Daudu told the court that the EFCC failed to establish any prima facie link between the properties and unlawful activities. He said two of the properties were properly declared by Malami in his asset declaration forms submitted to the Code of Conduct Bureau (CCB) in 2019 and 2023.
“These assets, their value, and their root of title were clearly stated in the asset declaration forms spanning from 2019 to 2023,” Daudu said, adding that the declarations serve as prima facie evidence of lawful acquisition.
The senior lawyer further outlined Malami’s declared sources of income, which include salaries, allowances, board and committee sitting fees, proceeds from the sale of assets, business turnover, loans to businesses, traditional gifts from friends, and earnings from the public presentation of a book authored by Malami.
According to the filing, Malami declared income of N374.63 million from salaries, estacodes, severance allowances, and other entitlements, as well as N574.07 million from disposed assets. He also declared business turnover of over N10 billion, loans to businesses amounting to N2.52 billion, and traditional gifts valued at N958 million.
Daudu added that Malami earned N509.88 million from the launch and public presentation of his book titled “Contemporary Issues on Nigerian Law and Practice, Thorny Terrains in Traversing the Nigerian Justice Sector: My Travails and Triumphs.”
He argued that these income streams sufficiently explain how the properties were acquired and insisted that the interim forfeiture order was obtained through misrepresentation.
“There is no prima facie evidence placed before this honourable court to justify linking these properties to unlawful activities or making them liable for forfeiture,” Daudu said.
