The Federal High Court, Abuja Division, on Wednesday ordered the final forfeiture of 48 property, including a university, linked to a former Attorney-General of the Federation (AGF), Abubakar Malami, to the Federal Government.

Justice Joyce Abdulmalik, in a ruling, held that the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission’s (EFCC) had been able to prove that the property were reasonably suspected to be proceeds of unlawful activities.

Justice Abdulmalik held that Mr Malami failed to show that the property were acquired through lawful sources.

Earlier, the judge dismissed several applications, motions on notice and applications to show cause filed by Mr Malami, his family members and some companies linked to the property, describing them as “wanting in merit.”

She held that the issue before the court was not “who owns the properties, but how legitimate are the funds used to acquire the properties.”

According to the judge, the respondents had “not dislodged the reasonable suspicion that the properties were acquired by unlawful activities.”

Justice Abdulmalik relied on Section 17 of the Advance Fee Fraud and Other Fraud Related Offences Act in granting the final forfeiture order.

The judge, however, vacated the interim forfeiture order in respect of nine other property sought to be forfeited by the EFCC.

She held that the anti-graft agency was unable to prove that the nine property located in Kebbi and Kaduna states were acquired through unlawful activities.

Justice Abdulmalik fixed today for judgement in the forfeiture suit filed by the EFCC against 57 property linked to Malami.

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

Justice Emeka Nwite on January 16 made an order for interim forfeiture of the 57 property after Ekele Iheanacho, SAN, moved the motion ex-parte.

The EFCC instituted the suit, seeking the permanent forfeiture of the 57 property worth N212.8 billion.

Following the publication of the interim order, Mr Malami, his wife Nana Hadiza, his son, Abdulaziz, and several companies linked to the property filed objections.

They urged the court to dismiss the EFCC’s application and set aside the interim forfeiture order, arguing that it was wrongly granted.

They also argued that the property were lawfully acquired and that the EFCC failed to establish any connection between the assets and any unlawful activity.

(NAN)