Court Adjourns Judgment In Malami Assets Case

The Federal High Court in Abuja on Monday postponed its judgment in the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) suit seeking the final forfeiture of 57 properties linked to former Attorney-General of the Federation (AGF), Abubakar Malami (SAN).

The court fixed July 10 as the new date for the judgment.

The matter had earlier been scheduled for judgment after Justice Joyce Abdulmalik, on May 26, fixed Monday for the ruling following the adoption of final written addresses by both parties.

During the earlier proceedings, counsel to the EFCC, Jibrin Okutepa (SAN), and lawyers representing Malami and the other respondents, led by Adedayo Adedeji (SAN), adopted their respective processes and presented arguments supporting and opposing the application.

However, when the matter came up on Monday, the judgment was not delivered.

No reason was given for the postponement. Three other cases listed before the court were also rescheduled out of the 13 matters on the day’s cause list.

The EFCC is asking the court to order the permanent forfeiture of 57 properties it believes were acquired through unlawful activities.

At the previous hearing, Okutepa told the court that the commission’s application, filed in February, was supported by a 47-paragraph affidavit and 46 exhibits.

He informed the court that the application was contained in three volumes and urged the judge to grant the request.

The senior lawyer argued that Malami and the other respondents failed to prove that the properties were lawfully acquired and asked the court to order their permanent forfeiture to the Federal Government.

In response, Adedeji told the court that Malami personally deposed to a 109-paragraph affidavit filed on February 27 to explain why the final forfeiture order should not be granted.

He urged the court to set aside the interim forfeiture order, maintaining that the respondents had shown that the properties were not purchased with proceeds of crime.

According to him, the EFCC based its case mainly on suspicion rather than credible evidence.

“The court deals with evidence, not suspicion,” he said.

Adedeji also argued that the anti-graft agency relied on extra-judicial statements that should ordinarily be tested through cross-examination during a criminal trial.

He maintained that the court could not properly determine the matter without oral evidence, despite its earlier decision not to hear witnesses.

The senior advocate further stated that some of the properties in question were acquired before Malami became Attorney-General, insisting they could not be regarded as proceeds of crime.

He also relied on separate counter-affidavits and additional affidavits filed on behalf of other respondents and companies named in the suit, asking the court to dismiss the EFCC’s application.

Lawyers representing other individuals and companies involved in the case also urged the court to reject the request for final forfeiture in the interest of justice.

The matter was subsequently adjourned for judgment.