The Federal High Court in Abuja has scheduled April 21 to hear the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC)’s application for the final forfeiture of 57 properties linked to Abubakar Malami, SAN, former Attorney-General of the Federation (AGF).
Justice Joyce Abdulmalik also directed that the applications filed by interested parties, including Malami, be heard on the same date to determine why the properties should not be permanently forfeited to the Federal Government.
Earlier, a sister court presided over by Justice Emeka Nwite, on January 6, ordered the interim forfeiture of the 57 properties, which the EFCC said were proceeds of unlawful activities.
The ex parte motion, filed by the EFCC’s counsel, Ekele Iheanacho, SAN, was marked FHC/ABJ/CS/20/2026.
The court also instructed the commission to publish the order in a national newspaper, giving interested persons 14 days to show cause why the properties should not be permanently forfeited.
The properties are located in Abuja, Kebbi, Kano, and Kaduna States. They include temporary and permanent sites of Rayhaan University in Kebbi.
The interim order was issued while Justice Nwite served as a vacation judge over the Christmas and New Year period.
After the vacation, the case was initially reassigned to Justice Obiora Egwuatu, who later recused himself for personal reasons, before it was transferred to Justice Abdulmalik.
Malami has challenged the EFCC’s civil suit, seeking to have the interim forfeiture order vacated. In a motion filed on January 27 by lawyers led by Joseph Daudu, SAN, the ex-AGF said the EFCC obtained the interim order through suppression of facts and misrepresentation.
He argued that the suit undermined his rights to own property, the presumption of innocence, and the right to live peacefully with his family. Other applicants have joined Malami in challenging the interim forfeiture order.
During proceedings on Friday, Daudu requested that the EFCC be ordered to restart the case, citing precedents in criminal cases where bail orders were revoked.
Jibrin Okutepa, SAN, EFCC’s counsel, disagreed, saying the current proceedings relate to the final forfeiture motion, and the ex parte order issued by Justice Nwite remains valid.
He said the principle of de novo trial in criminal proceedings does not apply to civil forfeiture cases.
Justice Abdulmalik agreed with the EFCC, ruling that the ex parte order allowed interested parties to file their applications, making a new hearing unnecessary.
The EFCC told the court that it had filed its motion for final forfeiture and noted that interested parties had submitted about 25 applications seeking to vacate the interim order.
The commission asked the court to hear all applications, including the final forfeiture motion, together.
Daudu argued that some applications questioned the court’s jurisdiction and said the suit was an abuse of court process. Justice Abdulmalik ruled that all applications would be considered together, noting that any improper process could be struck out.
She ordered all documents to be filed before the hearing and adjourned the matter to April 21 for the final forfeiture hearing and consideration of pending applications.
