Former Attorney-General of the Federation (AGF) and minister of justice, Abubakar Malami, on January 26, asked the federal high court sitting in Abuja to vacate the interim order made against three of the 57 properties listed by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) for forfeiture to the federal government.
Malami is specifically contesting the inclusion of properties listed as No. 9, No. 18 and No. 48 in the ex-parte application filed by the EFCC and granted by the court on January 6.
The properties he seeks to be released from the interim order include Plot 157, Lamido Crescent, Nasarawa GRA, Kano, listed as No. 9 and reportedly purchased on July 31, 2019, though no purchase price was stated in the schedule.
Also affected are a bedroom duplex with boys’ quarters located at No. 12, Yalinga Street, off Adetokunbo Ademola Crescent, Wuse II, Abuja, reportedly acquired in October 2018 for N150 million, as well as the ADC Kadi Malami Foundation Building, purchased for N56 million and listed as No. 18 and No. 48 respectively.
Justice Emeka Nwite, who presided over the matter as a vacation judge, had on January 6 ordered the temporary forfeiture of 57 properties believed to be proceeds of unlawful activities allegedly linked to Malami.
The order followed an ex-parte motion moved by EFCC counsel, Ekele Iheanacho, after which the court directed the commission to publish the forfeiture order in a national daily, inviting interested persons to show cause within 14 days why the properties should not be permanently forfeited to the federal government.
The properties, said to be worth billions of naira, are located across Abuja, Kebbi, Kano and Kaduna states.
However, in a motion on notice filed on Malami’s behalf by a legal team led by Joseph Daudu, the former justice minister accused the anti-graft agency of obtaining the interim order through suppression of material facts and misrepresentation.
Malami urged the court to dismiss the suit, describing it as an abuse of process capable of resulting in conflicting outcomes duplicative litigation, and argued that the proceedings violated his fundamental right to property, presumption of innocence, and his right to live peacefully with his family.
In the application dated January 26 and filed on January 27, marked FHC/ABJ/CS/20/2026, Malami sought two reliefs from the court: “An order of this honourable court vacating, setting aside and/or discharging the interim order(s) of this honourable court made on the 6th of January, 2026 against the respondent/applicant’s (Malami’s) properties listed as Nos. 9, 18, and 48 in the schedule of properties attached to the interim order of forfeiture of 6th January, 2026, the said properties having been duly declared in the respondent/applicant’s asset declaration forms throughout his tenure as a public officer and No. 48 is held in trust for the Estate of Late Khadi Malami Nassarawa.
“An order of this honourable court restraining the applicant/respondent (EFCC), acting by itself or through its servants, agents and proxies from interfering with the respondent/applicant’s (Malami’s) properties in issue or disturbing the respondent/applicant’s ownership, possession and control thereof in the course of purportedly giving effect to the order of this honourable court made on the 6th of January, 2026.”
In a 14-ground affidavit, Daudu argued that the three disputed properties were not linked to any prima facie evidence of unlawful activity or specific criminal offence, particularly those duly declared in Malami’s asset declaration forms submitted to the Code of Conduct Bureau (CCB).
He explained that properties listed as Nos. 9 and 18 were declared in Malami’s asset forms filed in 2019 and 2023, while property No. 48 is held in trust for the estate of his late father, Kadi Malami.
Daudu said, “These assets, their value and their root of title have been clearly stated and specifically demonstrated in the various asset declaration forms spanning from 2019 to 2023.
“The declaration above is prima facie evidence of the legitimacy of the acquisition and ownership of the properties.”
He further stated that Malami declared multiple sources of income in his asset forms, including earnings from salaries, allowances, disposed assets, business turnover, loans, traditional gifts, and proceeds from the launch of a book authored by him.
“These streams of income, and the continuing profits generated from the businesses over the years, sufficiently show that the properties sought to be forfeited were acquired through legitimate and lawful means as stated in the asset declaration forms,” he said.
Daudu maintained that the interim forfeiture order was granted without prima facie proof, was based on exaggerated and manipulated asset valuations, and should therefore be vacated.
He added that the EFCC deliberately misled the court and that the suit should be dismissed to avoid abuse of judicial process.
Nwite had earlier adjourned the case to January 27 for a report on compliance with the publication order.
However, proceedings could not continue as the matter was not listed on the cause list, having been heard during the court’s vacation period.
Consequently, the case file was returned to the chief judge for reassignment.
It was also observed that several lawyers were present in court on January 27, having filed processes on behalf of their clients seeking to halt the final forfeiture proceedings.
Meanwhile, Malami is currently facing money laundering charges filed by the EFCC and is reportedly being detained by the Department of State Services (DSS) over a separate allegation bordering on terrorism financing.
Comments