The Federal High Court in Abuja on Wednesday ordered the final forfeiture of about 48 properties linked to former Attorney General of the Federation (AGF) and Minister of Justice, Abubakar Malami SAN.
Justice Joyce Abdulmalik granted the forfeiture application by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC), holding that Malami and others laying claim to the assets failed to prove that they lawfully acquired them.
The EFCC instituted the civil forfeiture proceedings in January, seeking the permanent forfeiture of 57 properties valued at N212.8 billion, which it alleged were proceeds of unlawful activities linked to former Attorney General of the Federation and Minister of Justice, Abubakar Malami.
Relying on Section 17 of the Advance Fee Fraud and Other Fraud Related Offences Act, the court granted the EFCC’s application for final forfeiture of 48 properties to the Federal Government, although it discharged the interim forfeiture order in respect of some of the assets.
The forfeiture case began in January 2026, when the EFCC filed a civil forfeiture application before the Federal High Court in Abuja, seeking the permanent forfeiture of 57 properties spread across Abuja, Kano, Kebbi and Kaduna states, valued at about N212.8 billion, allegedly linked to Malami.
The commission alleged that the assets were proceeds of unlawful activities and were held through family members and companies acting as fronts.
On January 6, 2026, a judge, Emeka Nwite, granted the EFCC an interim forfeiture order, temporarily transferring the assets to the Federal Government pending the determination of the suit.
The court also directed the commission to publish the order in a national newspaper to allow any interested person to appear and show cause why the properties should not be permanently forfeited.
Following the publication of the interim order, Malami, his wife, Nana Hadiza Malami, his son Abdulaziz Abubakar Malami, and several companies linked to the properties challenged the proceedings.
The respondents argued that the assets were lawfully acquired and maintained that the EFCC failed to establish any connection between the properties and unlawful activities. They that the commission relied on speculation rather than credible evidence, insisting that it neither identified any predicate offence nor proved that the properties were proceeds of crime.
The court has not ruled that the anti-graft agency had successfully established that the properties were reasonably suspected to be proceeds of unlawful activities and were not acquired with lawful sources of income.
After the court’s annual vacation, the matter was reassigned to another judge, Abdulmalik.
During the hearing, the EFCC maintained that investigations showed the assets were acquired with proceeds of unlawful activities and concealed through proxies and companies linked to the former Attorney General.
The commission also argued that under Nigeria’s civil forfeiture regime, it was only required to establish reasonable suspicion, rather than prove a criminal offence beyond reasonable doubt.
After both sides adopted their final written addresses in May 2026, Abdulmalik reserved judgment on the case.
The ruling was initially scheduled for July 6, but was postponed twice, first to July 10, and later to July 15, before the court finally delivered its decision ordering the forfeiture of 48 properties.
Before delivering the substantive judgement, the judge dismissed several applications, motions on notice and objections filed by Malami, his family members and some companies claiming ownership of the properties.
The judge said they all lacked merit, stressing that the issue before the court was not “who owns the property, but how legitimate are the funds used to acquire the properties.”
According to the judge, the respondents had “not dislodged the reasonable suspicion that the property was acquired by unlawful activities.”
Judge Abdulmalik relied principally on Section 17 of the Advance Fee Fraud and Other Fraud Related Offences Act in granting the final forfeiture order.
However, she vacated the interim forfeiture order in respect of some of properties. EFCC had presented 57 properties linked to Malami for final forfeiture.
The final forefeiture does not amount to criminal conviction or guilt of anyone, as Malami, his wife and son are jointly facing charges some of which involve illegitimate acquisition of funds with suspicious origins.
