Court Orders Final Forfeiture of 48 Abubakar Malami Properties

The Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) has secured the final forfeiture of 48 properties linked to former Attorney-General of the Federation and Minister of Justice, Abubakar Malami. The order was granted on Wednesday, July 15, 2026, by Justice Joyce Abdulmalik of the Federal High Court, Abuja.

The court ruled that the EFCC forfeiture application was successful because the commission established that the properties were reasonably suspected to have been acquired through unlawful activities. Justice Abdulmalik explained that the main concern was not who owned the assets, but whether the funds used to purchase them came from legitimate sources. The EFCC forfeiture decision was based on the court’s finding that the respondents did not remove the reasonable suspicion surrounding the acquisition of the properties.

“The issue before the court is not who owns the properties, but how legitimate are the funds used to acquire the properties,” the judge held, adding that the respondents failed to dispel the reasonable suspicion that the assets were acquired through unlawful activities.

The court relied on Section 17 of the Advance Fee Fraud and Other Fraud Related Offences Act to approve the permanent forfeiture of the 48 properties. However, Justice Abdulmalik rejected the EFCC’s request to permanently forfeit nine other properties located in Kebbi and Kaduna states, stating that the commission did not provide enough evidence to prove they were linked to unlawful activities.

During earlier proceedings, EFCC counsel Jibrin Okutepa (SAN) argued that the commission’s application, supported by a 47-paragraph affidavit and 46 exhibits, provided sufficient grounds for the court to grant the order. He said Malami and other respondents failed to prove that the properties were lawfully acquired.

Meanwhile, counsel to Malami and the other respondents, Adedayo Adedeji (SAN), challenged the application. He argued that the EFCC relied mainly on suspicion rather than strong evidence connecting the assets to criminal activity. The EFCC forfeiture ruling now transfers ownership of the 48 properties to the Federal Government.

Do you think asset forfeiture cases should require stronger evidence before final court approval?