The Federal High Court in Abuja has rescheduled judgment in the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission’s (EFCC) suit seeking the final forfeiture of 57 properties linked to former Attorney-General of the Federation and Minister of Justice, Abubakar Malami, to July 15.
The matter, which was slated for judgment before Justice Joyce Abdulmalik on Friday, could not proceed as the judge did not sit.
According to a report by the News Agency of Nigeria (NAN), Justice Abdulmalik had initially fixed July 6 for judgment after counsel to the EFCC, Jibrin Okutepa (SAN), and lawyers representing Malami and other respondents adopted their final written addresses and argued their respective positions on the forfeiture application.
The EFCC is asking the court to permanently forfeit the 57 properties to the federal government, alleging that they are proceeds of unlawful activities.
At the previous hearing, Okutepa told the court that the commission’s application, filed in February, was supported by a 47-paragraph affidavit and 46 exhibits contained in three volumes. He urged the court to grant the application, arguing that Malami and the other respondents had failed to satisfactorily explain the legitimate sources of funds used to acquire the properties.
According to him, the respondents had “woefully failed to show cause” that the assets were lawfully acquired, and the court should therefore order their permanent forfeiture.
However, counsel to Malami, Adedayo Adedeji (SAN), opposed the application, relying on a 109-paragraph counter-affidavit sworn to by the former minister. He urged the court to set aside the interim forfeiture order and dismiss the EFCC’s application.
Adedeji argued that the respondents had sufficiently demonstrated that the properties were not proceeds of crime, insisting that the anti-graft agency’s case was founded on suspicion rather than credible evidence.
“The court deals with evidence, not suspicion,” he submitted.
The senior advocate further contended that the EFCC relied on extrajudicial statements that ought to be tested during a criminal trial, adding that the court could not fairly determine the matter without oral evidence, which it had earlier declined to admit.
He also maintained that several of the properties in dispute were acquired before Malami became Attorney-General, stressing that they could not reasonably be linked to any alleged criminal conduct.
In addition to Malami’s defence, Adedeji adopted separate counter-affidavits and further affidavits filed on behalf of other respondents and companies joined in the suit, urging the court to reject the EFCC’s forfeiture request.
Justice Abdulmalik is now expected to deliver judgment on July 15.
