A FEDERAL High Court in Abuja has postponed its judgment in the forfeiture case brought by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC), involving 57 properties allegedly linked to former attorney general of the Federation and minister of Justice, Abubakar Malami.
The judgment, which was earlier scheduled to be delivered by Justice Joyce Abdulmalik on Friday, July 10, could not hold, as the Judge did not sit, prompting the court to rescheduled its ruling for July 15.
The case was slated for judgment after both parties concluded their arguments. During the last hearing, EFCC’s lead Counsel, Jibrin Okutepa (SAN), urged the court to permanently forfeit the properties to the Federal Government, being suspected proceeds of unlawful activities.
He said the EFCC application was backed by a 47-paragraph affidavit and 46 supporting exhibits spread across three volumes.
The anti-graft agency insisted that Malami and the other respondents failed to provide convincing evidence proving the properties were acquired through legitimate means, adding: “The respondents have woefully failed to show cause that the assets were lawfully obtained.”
However, Malami’s legal team strongly rejected the allegations, with his Counsel, Adedayo Adedeji (SAN), arguing that the EFCC’s case was built on mere suspicion rather than concrete evidence.
Adedeji told the court that Malami personally filed a detailed 109-paragraph affidavit explaining the legitimate sources of the properties and why they should not be forfeited, adding that several of the assets were acquired long before Malami became a minister, making the EFCC’s claims unfounded.
Adedeji argued that “the court deals with evidence, not suspicion,” urging the Judge to dismiss the EFCC’s application and overturn the earlier interim forfeiture order.
He also criticised the anti-corruption agency for relying on what he described as extrajudicial statements that should only be examined during a criminal trial through cross-examination, saying the matter cannot be fairly determined without oral testimony, which the court had earlier declined to hear.
In addition, Adedeji presented separate counter-affidavits on behalf of other respondents and companies named in the suit, insisting none of the properties were proceeds of crime.
