By Vivian Okejeme
Justice Joyce Abdulmalik of the Federal High Court Abuja, Wednesday, ordered the final forfeiture of more than 40 properties linked to the former Attorney General of the Federation(AGF) and Minister of Justice, Abubakar Malami.
The order was following Malami’s inability to prove the prosecution wrong that the property were not proceeds of unlawful activities.
The court granted the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission’s (EFCC)’s final forfeiture request relying on Section 17 of the Advance Fee Fraud and Other Fraud Related Offences Act.
The contentious property were located in Abuja, Kano, Kebi and Kaduna states respectively.
Meanwhile, the court discountenanced the defendants’ applications and motions on notices to show cause that 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.”
However, she vacated the interim forfeiture order in respect of some properties.
Recall that the ani-graft agency, was before the court seeking the permanent forfeiture of 57 properties valued at N212.8 billion, which it alleged were proceeds of unlawful activities linked to former Attorney General of the Federation and Minister of Justice, Abubakar Malami.
On 16 January, during the Federal High Court’s annual vacation, vacation judge Emeka Nwite granted an interim forfeiture order over the properties.
The court, 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.
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 prayed the court to dismiss the EFCC’s application and set aside the interim forfeiture order, arguing that it was wrongly granted.
Also, they claimed 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, adding that the commission neither proved that the properties were proceeds of crime nor identified any specific criminal offence from which the assets were derived.
However, 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.
It maintained that under the law, it only needed to establish “reasonable suspicion” and not prove its case “beyond reasonable doubt.”
