Court Orders Final Forfeiture of 48 Abubakar Malami Properties
Federal High Court orders permanent forfeiture of 48 properties linked to former Justice Minister Abubakar Malami after EFCC application.
The Federal High Court Abuja has ordered the final forfeiture of 48 properties linked to former Attorney-General of the Federation Abubakar Malami following an application by the EFCC.
Justice Joyce Abdulmalik delivered the ruling on Wednesday, July 15, 2026, after finding that the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) established reasonable suspicion that the properties were acquired with funds linked to unlawful activities.
The court said the main issue was not ownership of the assets but the source of the money used to purchase them. Justice Abdulmalik stated, “The issue before the court is not who owns the properties, but how legitimate are the funds used to acquire the properties,” adding that the respondents failed to remove the suspicion surrounding the assets.
Relying on Section 17 of the Advance Fee Fraud and Other Fraud Related Offences Act, the judge granted the EFCC’s request for the permanent forfeiture of the 48 properties. The decision means the assets will be transferred to the Federal Government of Nigeria.
However, the court rejected the EFCC’s request concerning nine other properties located in Kebbi and Kaduna states. Justice Abdulmalik ruled that the commission did not provide enough evidence to prove they came from unlawful activities and cancelled the earlier interim forfeiture order on those assets.
During previous proceedings, EFCC counsel Jibrin Okutepa (SAN) told the court that the application was supported by a 47-paragraph affidavit and 46 exhibits. He argued that Malami and other respondents had failed to prove that the properties were legally acquired.
Counsel to Malami, Adedayo Adedeji (SAN), opposed the application, saying the EFCC relied mainly on suspicion rather than clear evidence. He urged the court to dismiss the case and restore the interim forfeiture order.
The ruling marks a major development in the ongoing legal dispute over the Malami properties forfeiture case.
Do you think asset forfeiture cases should require stronger evidence before properties are permanently taken by the government?
