THE Federal High Court sitting in Abuja on Tuesday fixed July 6, 2026, 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 (AGF) and Minister of Justice, Abubakar Malami, SAN.
News Point Nigeria reports that the Justice Joyce Abdulmalik fixed the date after counsel to the EFCC, Jibrin Okutepa, SAN, and lawyers representing Malami and other respondents adopted their respective processes and presented arguments for and against the suit.
The News Agency of Nigeria (NAN) reports that the anti-graft agency is seeking the final forfeiture of the properties, alleging that they are reasonably suspected to be proceeds of unlawful activities.
While moving the motion before the court, EFCC counsel, Okutepa, informed the court that the application, filed in February, was supported by a 47-paragraph affidavit accompanied by 46 exhibits.
The senior advocate stated that the motion was contained in “three volumes” and urged the court to grant the application.
Relying on the processes filed before the court, Okutepa argued that Malami and the other respondents had “woefully failed to show cause” that the properties in dispute “were acquired legitimately.”
He therefore urged the court to order the permanent forfeiture of the properties to the Federal Government.
Responding, counsel to Malami and other respondents, Adedayo Adedeji, SAN, told the court that the application opposing the forfeiture request was filed on February 27 and supported by a 109-paragraph affidavit personally deposed to by Malami.
Adedeji explained that the affidavit was specifically filed to show cause why the court should not grant the final forfeiture order sought by the EFCC.
The senior lawyer urged the court not only to set aside the earlier interim forfeiture order but also to hold that the respondents had sufficiently demonstrated that the properties “were not acquired from proceeds of crime.”
He argued that the EFCC merely relied on suspicion in alleging that the properties were acquired with proceeds of unlawful activities.
“The court deals with evidence, not suspicion,” Adedeji submitted.
He further urged the court to discountenance the submissions made by the EFCC’s counsel.
Adedeji also argued that the anti-graft agency relied heavily on what he described as “extra judicial evidence,” which, according to him, ought to be subjected to cross-examination during criminal trial proceedings rather than being relied upon in the present matter.
According to him, there was no proper way for the court to determine the matter without oral evidence, which he noted the court had earlier declined to entertain.
The lawyer maintained that the properties in question, including some allegedly acquired before Malami assumed office as Attorney-General of the Federation, “were not proceeds of crime.”
He also moved separate counter-affidavits and further affidavits on behalf of other respondents and companies listed in the suit, urging the court to refuse the EFCC’s forfeiture request.
Other lawyers representing individuals and companies joined in urging the court to dismiss the final forfeiture application in the interest of justice.
Following the adoption of all processes by the parties, Justice Abdulmalik adjourned the matter until July 6, 2026, for ruling and judgment.