The Federal High Court in Abuja on Friday adjourned judgment in the forfeiture suit filed by the EFCC against 57 properties linked to former Minister of Justice, Abubakar Malami, until July 15.
The case, fixed for judgment before Justice Joyce Abdulmalik, could not go on because the judge did not sit.
The News Agency of Nigeria (NAN) reports that the judge had, on May 26, fixed July 6 for judgment.
Justice Abdulmalik fixed the date after the EFCC counsel, Jibrin Okutepa, SAN, and counsel to Malami and other respondents, Adedayo Adedeji, SAN, adopted their processes and presented their arguments for and against the forfeiture process.
NAN reports that the anti-graft agency had, in the suit, sought the final forfeiture of the properties reasonably suspected to be proceeds of unlawful activities.
Moving the motion on the last adjourned date, Okutepa told the court that the motion, filed in February, was supported by a 47-paragraph affidavit with 46 exhibits.
The lawyer, who said the motion was in “three volumes”, prayed the court to grant the application.
Relying on the processes, he urged the court to hold that Malami and other respondents had “woefully failed to show cause” that the properties “were acquired legitimately”.
He urged the court to order the forfeiture of the properties permanently to the federal government.
Responding, Adedeji said the application, filed on Feb. 27 and supported by a 109-paragraph affidavit, was deposed to by Malami himself.
He said the affidavit was filed to show cause why the final forfeiture order should not be granted.
Adedeji urged the court not only to set aside the earlier interim order but also to hold that the respondents had demonstrated that the properties “were not acquired from proceeds of crime”.
He argued that the EFCC merely relied on suspicion to allege that the properties were acquired with proceeds of crime.
“The court deals with evidence, not suspicion,” he said.
He urged the court to discountenance the submission of EFCC’s lawyer.
Adedeji further argued that the prosecution relied on “extrajudicial evidence” ordinarily meant for cross-examination during criminal trial proceedings as evidence in the current case.
He said there was no way the court could properly determine the matter without oral evidence, which the court had earlier refused.
He maintained that the properties, including some acquired before Malami assumed office, “were not proceeds of crime”.
Adedeji also moved other separate counter-affidavits and further affidavits on behalf of some other respondents and companies listed in the matter.
He urged the court to refuse the forfeiture request. (NAN)
