The Federal High Court, Abuja Division, on Friday adjourned judgement in the forfeiture suit filed by the EFCC against 57 properties linked to former justice minister Abubakar Malami until July 15.

The case, fixed for judgement before Justice Joyce Abdulmalik, could not proceed because the judge did not sit. The judge had fixed July 6 for judgement on May 26.

Ms Abdulmalik fixed the date after the EFCC counsel, Jibrin Okutepa, and counsel to Mr Malami and other respondents, Adedayo Adedeji, adopted their processes and presented their arguments for and against the forfeiture process.

The anti-graft agency had, in the suit, sought the final forfeiture of the properties reasonably suspected to be proceeds of unlawful activities.

Moving the motion on the last adjourned date, Mr Okutepa told the court that the motion, filed in February, was supported by a 47-paragraph affidavit with 46 exhibits.

The lawyer, who said the motion was in “three volumes,” urged the court to grant the application.

Relying on the processes, he urged the court to hold that Mr Malami and other respondents had “woefully failed to show cause” that the properties “were acquired legitimately”. 

He urged the court to order the permanent forfeiture of the properties to the federal government.

Responding, Mr Adedeji said the application, filed on February 27 and supported by a 109-paragraph affidavit, was deposed to by Mr Malami himself. He said the affidavit was filed to show cause why the final forfeiture order should not be granted.

Mr Adedeji urged the court not only to set aside the earlier interim order but also to hold that the respondents had demonstrated that the properties “were not acquired from proceeds of crime.”

He argued that the EFCC merely relied on suspicion to allege that the properties were acquired with proceeds of crime.

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

He urged the court to discountenance the submission of the EFCC’s lawyer.

Mr Adedeji further argued that the prosecution relied on “extrajudicial evidence” ordinarily meant for cross-examination during criminal trial proceedings as evidence in the current case. 

He said the court could not properly determine the matter without oral evidence, which it had earlier refused.

He maintained that the properties, including some acquired before Mr Malami assumed office, “were not proceeds of crime”.

Mr Adedeji also moved other separate counter-affidavits and further affidavits on behalf of some other respondents and companies listed in the matter. He urged the court to refuse the forfeiture request.

(NAN)