The Federal High Court in Abuja has ordered the final forfeiture of 48 properties linked to former Attorney General of the Federation and Minister of Justice, Abubakar Malami, to the Federal Government.
Justice Joyce Abdulmalik, who delivered the judgment on Wednesday, held that the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission had established sufficient legal grounds to justify the forfeiture of the assets.
The judge ruled that Malami, members of his family and companies associated with the properties failed to rebut the anti-graft agency's allegation that the assets were acquired through proceeds of unlawful activities.
Justice Abdulmalik dismissed the applications and motions filed by the respondents challenging the interim forfeiture order, describing them as lacking merit.
According to the court, the central issue was not the ownership of the properties but whether the funds used to acquire them were lawfully obtained.
The judge held that the respondents failed to dispel the reasonable suspicion raised by the EFCC regarding the source of the funds and consequently granted the commission's application for the permanent forfeiture of the affected properties under the provisions of the Advance Fee Fraud and Other Fraud Related Offences Act.
However, the court discharged the interim forfeiture order in respect of some of the properties initially listed by the commission.
The EFCC had in January filed a civil forfeiture suit seeking the permanent seizure of 57 properties valued at about N212.8bn, alleging that they were proceeds of unlawful activities linked to the former justice minister.
An interim forfeiture order was granted on January 16 by Justice Emeka Nwite, who directed the commission to publish the order in a national newspaper to enable interested parties to challenge the application.
The affected properties are located across Abuja, Kano, Kebbi and Kaduna states.
Following the publication, Malami, his wife, Nana Hadiza Malami, his son, Abdulaziz Abubakar Malami, and several companies linked to the assets opposed the forfeiture, insisting that the properties were legitimately acquired.
They argued that the EFCC failed to establish any connection between the properties and alleged criminal activities, maintaining that the commission relied on speculation and did not identify any specific offence from which the assets were derived.
During the proceedings before Justice Abdulmalik, the EFCC maintained that its investigation showed the properties were acquired with proceeds of unlawful activities and were held in the names of individuals and companies acting as fronts for the former Attorney General.
The commission further argued that civil forfeiture proceedings only required proof of reasonable suspicion, not proof beyond reasonable doubt. After adopting their final written addresses in May, both parties awaited judgment, which was eventually delivered on Wednesday after two adjournments.
0 Comments