The Federal High Court, Abuja Division, on Monday adjourned judgment in the forfeiture suit filed by the EFCC against 57 properties linked to former attorney general of the federation, Abubakar Malami, until July 10.

Justice Joyce Abdulmalik had fixed today, May 26, for the delivery of the judgement.

Judge Abdulmalik fixed the date after EFCC’s lawyer, Jibrin Okutepa, and counsel to Mr Malami and other respondents, Adedayo Adedeji, adopted their processes and presented their arguments for and against the case.

The case, listed as number four on Monday’s cause list, however, could not proceed.

Although the court gave no reason for the adjournment, three other cases on the cause list were also given new dates out of the 13 matters before the court.

The anti-graft agency had, in the suit, sought the final forfeiture of the properties based on the reasonable suspicion that they were 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”, prayed 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 Nigerian 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 to set aside the earlier interim order and 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, urging the court to discountenance the submission of 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 other respondents and companies listed in the matter. He urged the court to refuse the forfeiture request.

Besides, other lawyers, who equally appeared for individuals and some companies seeking to show cause, urged the court to dismiss the final forfeiture application in the interest of justice.

The judge consequently adjourned the matter until July 6 for judgement.

(NAN)