Court adjourns judgment in EFCC’s forfeiture suit against Malami until July 10

The Federal High Court in Abuja on Monday postponed judgment in the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission’s (EFCC) forfeiture suit seeking the permanent seizure of 57 properties linked to former Attorney-General of the Federation and Minister of Justice, Abubakar Malami.

Justice Joyce Abdulmalik, who had earlier scheduled judgment for Monday after hearing final arguments from all parties, adjourned the matter until July 10.

No reason was given for the adjournment. However, the case, which was listed as number four on the court’s cause list, was among several matters that did not proceed, with three other cases also assigned fresh dates out of the 13 matters slated for hearing.

The EFCC is asking the court to grant a final forfeiture order on the properties, arguing that they are reasonably suspected to have been acquired with proceeds of unlawful activities.

During the adoption of final written addresses at the previous sitting, EFCC counsel, Jibrin Okutepa (SAN), urged the court to grant the commission’s application, saying it was supported by a 47-paragraph affidavit and 46 documentary exhibits filed in three volumes.

Okutepa argued that Malami and the other respondents had failed to provide sufficient evidence to establish that the properties were lawfully acquired.

He therefore asked the court to order the permanent forfeiture of the assets to the Federal Government.

Counsel to Malami, Adedayo Adedeji (SAN), however, opposed the application, urging the court to dismiss the EFCC’s request and discharge the interim forfeiture order earlier granted.

Adedeji told the court that the defence had filed a comprehensive 109-paragraph counter-affidavit, personally deposed to by Malami, to explain how the properties were acquired and why they should not be forfeited.

He maintained that the anti-graft agency’s case was built largely on suspicion rather than credible evidence.

“The court deals with evidence, not suspicion,” Adedeji argued, insisting that the EFCC had failed to prove that the properties were proceeds of crime.

He also faulted the commission for relying on what he described as extrajudicial statements, arguing that such evidence ought to be tested during a criminal trial through cross-examination rather than being relied upon in civil forfeiture proceedings.

According to him, the court could not properly determine the issues without taking oral evidence, a procedure he said had earlier been declined by the court.

Adedeji further argued that some of the disputed properties were acquired before Malami became Attorney-General of the Federation, contending that they could not reasonably be linked to alleged unlawful activities committed while he held public office.

He also adopted separate counter-affidavits and additional processes filed on behalf of other respondents and companies joined in the suit, urging the court to refuse the EFCC’s application for final forfeiture.

Lawyers representing other individuals and corporate entities affected by the proceedings equally asked the court to dismiss the application, arguing that the respondents had sufficiently shown cause why the assets should not be permanently forfeited.

Following the adoption of all processes, Justice Abdulmalik had initially fixed July 6 for judgment before adjourning the matter on Monday to July 10.