THE Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) has explained the rationale behind its controversial operation at properties linked to former Attorney-General of the Federation, Abubakar Malami, insisting that the action was lawful and backed by a valid court order.
News Point Nigeria reports that the anti-graft agency said what many described as a “raid” was, in fact, a routine enforcement procedure following an interim forfeiture order granted by a competent court.
Speaking on Monday, EFCC spokesman, Dele Oyewale, clarified that operatives merely marked a property in Abuja to notify the public of its legal status.
According to him, the action was carried out in compliance with an interim forfeiture order previously issued by a Federal High Court.
“There is nothing illegal in the matter. The attachment or marking of property that is on a forfeiture order is a normal law enforcement action when the court has granted an interim forfeiture,” Oyewale stated.
He explained that such markings serve as a warning to members of the public that the property is subject to ongoing legal proceedings and may ultimately be forfeited to the government.
“What I mean by attachment of property is the normal marking of the property to caution members of the public that the property so marked is a forfeited property, whether in interim or final forfeiture,” he added.
The EFCC further rejected claims that its operatives “raided” Malami’s residence or office, describing such characterisations as misleading.
“The commission did not go there to raid anywhere. We are not involved in any such act. So there is nothing illegal about what we have done,” Oyewale maintained.
The clarification follows widespread reactions to a viral video showing a heated exchange between Malami and EFCC operatives at one of his properties.
In the video, the former minister is seen questioning the legality of the operation and demanding to see a specific court order authorising the marking of his property.
Malami argued that the order presented by the operatives lacked clear directives and insisted that the matter was still pending before the court.
“Where is your court order? The order here is not specific. It didn’t give you a clear directive to come and mark my property,” he said.
Accusing the agency of attempting to embarrass him, he added, “You want to move nationwide to embarrass me? Go ahead, we will meet in court.”
Despite his objections, an EFCC operative in the footage insisted that the commission had the authority to act once a property is under forfeiture proceedings.
The development came just hours after former Vice-President Atiku Abubakar paid a solidarity visit to Malami alongside other political allies.
Following the visit, Atiku issued a strong statement condemning the action against Malami, describing it as politically motivated and indicative of a broader pattern of repression.
He also called for the release of former Kaduna State Governor, Nasir El-Rufai, and other detainees, arguing that no individual should be held for holding opposing political views.
In a statement released through his media office, Atiku accused the administration of Bola Tinubu of weaponising state institutions to silence opposition voices.
“This is not governance. This is intimidation. This is a regime weaponising state power to silence dissent,” he said.
The former vice-president further warned that Nigeria was witnessing a dangerous erosion of democratic norms.
“What we are seeing is the naked abuse of power—security agencies deployed not for national security, but for settling political scores. This is how democracies die,” he added.
Atiku also alleged that the targeting of opposition figures, including Malami and El-Rufai, was part of a broader strategy to coerce them into aligning with the ruling party.
The EFCC’s action is linked to an earlier ruling by a Federal High Court in Abuja, which ordered the interim forfeiture of 57 properties allegedly connected to Malami and his associates.
The court directed the commission to publish the order and invite interested parties to show cause within 14 days why the assets should not be permanently forfeited.
Malami subsequently challenged the forfeiture order in court, maintaining his innocence.
He is also facing charges alongside members of his family over alleged money laundering involving over N8.7 billion allegations he has consistently denied.