Court Fixes July 6 For Judgment In EFCC’s Forfeiture Case Against Ex-AGF Malami
The Federal High Court in Abuja has fixed July 6 for judgment in the forfeiture suit filed by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) against 57 properties linked to former Attorney-General of the Federation and Minister of Justice, Abubakar Malami (SAN).
Justice Joyce Abdulmalik fixed the date on Tuesday after lawyers representing the EFCC, Malami and other respondents adopted their court processes and argued their cases.
The EFCC, through its counsel, Jibrin Okutepa (SAN), is seeking the final forfeiture of the properties, which the commission said are reasonably suspected to be proceeds of unlawful activities.
Okutepa told the court that the application filed in February was backed 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 failed to prove that the properties were legitimately acquired.
According to him, the respondents “woefully failed to show cause” why the properties should not be permanently forfeited to the Federal Government.
However, Malami’s lawyer, Adedayo Adedeji (SAN), opposed the application and asked the court to dismiss the forfeiture request.
Adedeji said the defence filed a 109-paragraph counter-affidavit personally deposed to by Malami to explain why the interim forfeiture order should be set aside.
He argued that the EFCC based its allegations merely on suspicion without presenting concrete evidence linking the properties to criminal activities.
“The court deals with evidence, not suspicion,” Adedeji told the court.
He also maintained that some of the properties were acquired before Malami became Attorney-General, insisting that they were not proceeds of crime.
The lawyer further accused the anti-graft agency of relying on extra-judicial statements that should ordinarily be subjected to cross-examination during a criminal trial.
According to him, the matter could not be properly determined without oral evidence, which the court had earlier declined to entertain.
Other lawyers representing individuals and companies joined in opposing the forfeiture request, urging the court to dismiss the application in the interest of justice.
After listening to arguments from all parties, Justice Abdulmalik adjourned the matter until July 6 for judgment.
