Judge Abdulmalik granted the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission’s (EFCC) application, after holding that the respondents failed to rebut the reasonable suspicion that the properties were acquired through unlawful activities.
Before delivering the substantive judgment, the judge dismissed several applications, motions on notice and applications to show cause filed by Mr. Malami, his family members and some companies linked to the properties, describing them as “wanting in merit”.
She held that the issue before the court was not “who owns the property, but how legitimate are the funds used to acquire the properties.”
According to the judge, the respondents had “not dislodged the reasonable suspicion that the property was acquired by unlawful activities”.
Judge Abdulmalik 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 properties.
The EFCC had instituted the civil forfeiture proceedings in January, seeking the permanent forfeiture of 57 properties valued at ₦212.8 billion, which it alleged were proceeds of unlawful activities linked to the AGF and minister.
On 16 January, during the Federal High Court’s annual vacation, vacation judge Emeka Nwite granted an interim forfeiture order over the properties.
He also directed the EFCC to publish the order in a national newspaper for anyone with an interest in the assets to appear before the court and show cause why they should not be permanently forfeited to the Federal Government.
The properties are located in Abuja, Kano, Kebbi and Kaduna states.
Following the publication, Mr. Malami, his wife, Nana Hadiza Malami, his son, Abdulaziz Abubakar Malami, and several companies linked to the properties filed objections.
They urged the court to dismiss the EFCC’s application and set aside the interim forfeiture order, arguing that it was wrongly granted.
They also argued that the properties were lawfully acquired and that the EFCC failed to establish any connection between the assets and any unlawful activity.
The respondents further argued that the EFCC relied on speculation rather than credible evidence.
They maintained that the commission neither proved that the properties were proceeds of crime nor identified any specific criminal offence from which the assets were derived.
After the Federal High Court resumed from its annual vacation, the case was reassigned to Judge Joyce Abdulmalik for hearing and determination.
At the hearing, the EFCC maintained that its investigation showed the properties were acquired with proceeds of unlawful activities and held in the names of individuals and companies acting as fronts for Mr. Malami.
The commission urged the court to make the interim forfeiture order final.
The EFCC also argued that, under the law, it only needed to establish “reasonable suspicion” and not prove its case “beyond reasonable doubt”.
In late May, both sides adopted their final written addresses, after which Abdulmalik reserved judgment.
The court initially fixed 6 July for judgment.
It later postponed the decision twice before delivering its ruling on Wednesday.
