The Abuja Division of the Federal High Court on Friday fixed April 21 to hear an application filed by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) for final forfeiture of 57 properties linked to former Attorney-General of the Federation (AGF) Abubakar Malami.

Justice Joyce Abdulmalik also fixed the date for the hearing of the applications filed by interested parties, including Mr Malami, to show cause why the property should not be permanently forfeited to the federal government.

A sister court, presided over by Justice Emeka Nwite, on January 6, ordered the interim forfeiture of the 57 properties suspected to be proceeds of unlawful activities to the federal government.

The judge made the order following an ex parte motion, marked FHC/ABJ/CS/20/2026, and moved by the EFCC’s lawyer, Ekele Iheanacho, SAN.

The judge directed the commission to publish the order in a national daily for interested person(s) to show cause within 14 days why all the property should not be permanently forfeited to the federal government.

The multibillion-naira landed properties are located in Abuja, Kebbi, Kano and Kaduna States, including temporary and permanent sites of Rayhaan University in Kebbi.

The order was granted while Mr Nwite was serving as a vacation judge during the Christmas/New Year break.
The case was, however, reassigned to Justice Obiora Egwuatu after the vacation ended. Mr Egwuatu recused himself from the matter, citing personal reasons and, in the interests of justice, before it was reassigned to Ms Abdulmalik.

Mr Malami had since challenged the anti-graft agency’s civil suit, praying the court to vacate the order.
In a motion on notice filed on January 27 on Mr Malami’s behalf by a team of lawyers led by Joseph Daudu, SAN, the ex-AGF alleged that the anti-corruption agency got the interim order by suppression of material facts and misrepresentation.

Mr Malami urged the court to dismiss the suit to prevent “conflicting outcomes and duplicative litigation.”
He argued that the proceeding was an assault on his fundamental right to own property, his presumption of innocence, and his right to live in peace with his family.
More applicants had also joined Mr Malami in urging the court to vacate the interim order of forfeiture.

When the case was called on Friday, Mr Daudu urged the court to direct the EFCC to begin the matter afresh, just as the judge gave the order in the criminal charge, disallowing Mr Malami and the co-defendants from continuing to enjoy the earlier bail granted to them by Mr Nwite.

Jibrin Okutepa, SAN, who appeared for EFCC, disagreed with Mr Daudu’s submission, stating, “That is not the position of the law.”

Mr Okutepa argued that what is before Ms Abdulmalik presently is the final forfeiture motion, including the various applications filed by interested parties, since Mr Nwite had already granted their ex parte application.

According to him, the examples of de novo trials in criminal proceedings are inapplicable to this proceeding.
“I will urge my lord to hold that the ex parte application that led to the order remains extant,” he said.

He said the ex parte order was made “to commence the proceeding which is now here before my lord.”
Responding, Mr Daudu cited a previous case involving Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan vs the Clerk of the National Assembly and three others held at the Appeal Court to back his argument.

Mr Okutepa submitted that the case cited by Mr Daudu was not applicable in the instant matter based on points of law and fact. He said it was the sister court’s order granting it that brought the case to life.

“My lord, the order is not spent, and I urge your lordship not to accede to that proposition,” he said.

In a short ruling, Ms Abdulmalik agreed with Mr Okutepa’s argument. She held that it was Mr Nwite’s ex parte order that made the interested parties approach the court with their applications; hence, the de novo principle was inapplicable here.

Mr Okutepa, therefore, informed the court that their motion for final forfeiture of the property was being filed at the registry.

He said the interested parties served on them about 25 motions to show cause, while the interim order should be vacated.

The lawyer urged the court to consider all the applications, including their motion for final forfeiture, together.

But Mr Daudu disagreed with Mr Okutepa’s submission. He argued that in some of the applications filed, the court’s jurisdiction to hear the matter is being challenged, as the suit is considered an abuse of the court order.
The judge, in a short ruling, ordered that all the applications would be taken together.

She, however, pointed out that any application that needs to be struck out, the court would not hesitate to do so.
Ms Abdulmalik, who ordered that all processes must be filed before the hearing date, adjourned the case until April 21 for the hearing of the application for final forfeiture and for other pending applications.
(NAN)