By David Lawani, Abuja
A fresh confrontation has erupted between former Attorney-General of the Federation and Minister of Justice, Abubakar Malami, and the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission over an attempt to enforce a forfeiture order on his Maitama residence in Abuja.
Malami alleged that EFCC operatives stormed his residence early Tuesday in an attempt to seize the property, describing the move as provocative and raising concerns about the manner of enforcement.
According to him, the presence of armed operatives created tension at the scene, as he questioned the legality of the action and demanded proper documentation.
“There were personnel that were fully kitted, fully armed, and very intimidating. I found that attitude very amazing,” he said.
The development is part of a broader asset recovery exercise by the anti-graft agency, which has reportedly marked several properties linked to the former minister for forfeiture across the Federal Capital Territory.
However, the EFCC insisted that its actions were in line with the law and backed by a valid court order.
Spokesperson of the Commission, Dele Oyewale, said the agency followed due process in marking and enforcing the property.
“There is nothing illegal. The attachment or marking of property is a normal law enforcement action,” Oyewale stated.
He explained that such enforcement steps are standard procedure once a court grants an interim forfeiture order.
“When there is a forfeiture order, the enforcement agency can proceed with necessary steps in line with the law,” he added.
Responding, Malami acknowledged that an interim forfeiture order was issued on January 6, 2026, but maintained that he had taken legal steps to challenge it within the stipulated timeframe.
“There was an order of the court we have responded to and filed an application for such order to be set aside,” he said.
The former minister further alleged that the timing of the EFCC’s action raises questions, suggesting it may not be unconnected to political considerations.
“The insinuations associated with the unfolding drama point to a clear direction of political motivation,” he claimed.
Despite the sharp exchanges, the dispute remains before the court, with both parties relying on differing interpretations of the forfeiture order and its enforcement.
