ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

Former Justice Minister Abubakar Malami (SAN) has prayed the Abuja Division of the Federal High Court to vacate the interim order made against three of the 57 properties listed by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) for forfeiture to the federal government.

Mr Malami, former attorney general of the federation (AGF) of the Muhammadu Buhari administration, is challenging the EFCC over the properties listed as Nos. 9, 18, and 48 in the ex parte motion it brought to the court on January 6.

The three properties sought to be discharged include Plot 157, Lamido Crescent, Nasarawa, GRA, Kano, purchased on July 31, 2019, with no specific amount stated in the schedule as No. 9; a duplex and Boys Quarters at No. 12, Yalinga Street, Off Adetokunbo Ademola Crescent, Wuse Il, Abuja, purchased in October 2018 at N150 million; and ADC Kadi Malami Foundation Building, bought at N56 million, listed as No. 18 and No. 48.

Justice Emeka Nwite, who sat as a vacation judge, had, on January 6, ordered the temporary forfeiture of 57 properties suspected to be proceeds of unlawful activities linked to Mr Malami.

Mr Nwite had granted the order following an ex parte motion moved by the EFCC’s lawyer, Ekele Iheanacho (SAN), to that effect.

The judge then directed the commission to publish the order in a national daily, inviting interested persons to show cause within 14 days why all the property should not be permanently forfeited to the federal government.

The multibillion-naira landed properties are located in Abuja, Kebbi, Kano, and Kaduna States.

However, in a motion on notice filed on Mr Malami’s behalf by a team of lawyers led by Joseph Daudu (SAN), the former AGF alleged that the anti-corruption agency got the interim order by suppression of material facts and misrepresentation.

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

In the application dated January 26 but filed January 27 by Mr Daudu, marked FHC/ABJ/CS/20/2026, Mr Malami sought two orders:

“An order of this honourable court vacating, setting aside, and/or discharging the interim order(s) of this honourable court made on the 6th of January, 2026, against the respondent/applicant’s (Malami’s) properties listed as Nos. 9, 18, and 48 in the schedule of properties attached to the interim order of forfeiture of 6th January, 2026, the said properties having been duly declared in the respondent/applicant’s asset declaration forms throughout his tenure as a public officer, and No. 48 is held in trust for the estate of the late Khadi Malami Nassarawa.

“An order of this honourable court restraining the applicant/respondent (EFCC), acting by itself or through its servants, agents and proxies, from interfering with the respondent/applicant’s (Malami’s) properties in issue or disturbing the respondent/applicant’s ownership, possession and control thereof in the course of purportedly giving effect to the order of this honourable court made on the 6th of January, 2026.”

In a 14-ground argument, Mr Daudu argued that the assets Nos. 9, 18, and 48, the subject of the interim forfeiture, especially those declared in the various asset declaration forms of Mr Malami, are not linked by prima facie evidence to any unlawful activity or specific offence.

He said Mr Malami had declared the assets listed as Nos. 9 and 18 in his asset declaration forms filed with the Code of Conduct Bureau (CCB) in 2019 and 2023, respectively.

He said property No. 48 is held in trust by the former AGF for the benefit of the estate of his late father, the late Kadi Malami.

“These assets, their value, and their root of title have been clearly stated and specifically demonstrated in the various asset declaration forms spanning from 2019 to 2023.

“The declaration above is prima facie evidence of the legitimacy of the acquisition and ownership of the properties,” Mr Daudu said.

The senior lawyer submitted that Mr Malami copiously declared his source of income in his asset declaration filed with the CCB to include N374,630,900 in income from salaries, estacodes, severance allowance, and others.

“Sitting allowances as a board/committee member of the Federal Judicial Service Commission, Federal Capital Territory Judicial Service Commission, Legal Practitioner Privileges Committee, and a high-powered presidential committee.

“N574,073,000 (five hundred and seventy-four million and seventy-three thousand naira) as income generated through disposed assets. N10,017,382,684 (ten billion, seventeen million, three hundred and eighty-two thousand, six hundred and eighty-four naira) turnover from businesses. N2,522,000,000 (two billion, five hundred and twenty-two million naira) being loans to businesses.

“N958,000,000 (nine hundred and fifty-eight million naira) as a traditional gift from personal friends.”

Mr Daudu equally explained that N509,880,000 (five hundred and nine million, eight hundred and eighty thousand naira) was realised as income from the launch and public presentation of a book titled “Contemporary Issues on Nigerian Law and Practice, Thorny Terrains in Traversing the Nigerian Justice Sector: My Travails and Triumphs” by Mr Malami.

“These streams of income, and the continuing profits generated from the businesses over the years, sufficiently show that the properties sought to be forfeited were acquired through legitimate and lawful means as stated in the asset declaration forms,” he said.

According to the senior lawyer, the order of interim forfeiture is not based on any prima facie establishment of unlawful purpose and is liable to be set aside.

He submitted that the court wrongly granted the order of interim forfeiture against these properties, “which were lawfully acquired post-appointment of the respondent/applicant and declared with the Code of Conduct Bureau as legitimate assets of the respondent/applicant, in compliance with the 5th Schedule to the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, in 2019 and 2023. The interim order was obtained ex parte by suppression of material facts and misrepresentation.

“The interim order for forfeiture was obtained by manifest exaggeration, malicious inflation of the value of the assets, and unreasonable and incompetent valuation deliberately manipulated to mislead the court, negatively affecting its discretion in granting an order based on manipulated facts and conclusions deliberately cooked up by the applicant/respondent (EFCC).

“That there is no prima facie evidence placed before this honourable court by the applicant/respondent (EFCC) to warrant the properties linked to the respondent/applicant (Malami) to be liable for forfeiture to the Federal Government of Nigeria. The proper remedy for preventing conflicting outcomes and duplicative litigation is for this honourable court to dismiss or strike out this suit. That this proceeding is an assault on the applicant’s fundamental right to property, his presumption of innocence and his right to live in peace with his family.”

Mr Nwite had adjourned the matter on January 6 until January 27 for a report on compliance with the publication of the interim order of forfeiture.

But the matter could not proceed because it was not on the cause list for the day, as it was heard during the vacation period. The judge, having concluded the vacation cases, remitted the case file back to the chief judge for reassignment.

Mr Malami, who is facing a money laundering charge preferred against him by the EFCC, is also presently detained at the State Security Service (SSS) facility for another offence bordering on alleged terrorism financing.

(NAN)