A federal high court in Abuja has postponed judgement in the suit filed by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) seeking the final forfeiture of 57 properties linked to Abubakar Malami, former attorney-general of the federation.
The matter, which came up on Monday before Joyce Abdulmalik, presiding judge, had previously been scheduled for judgement after parties adopted their final processes and argued the case on May 26.
The EFCC is asking the court to permanently forfeit the properties to the federal government on the grounds that they are reasonably suspected to be proceeds of unlawful activities.
At the last hearing, Jibrin Okutepa, counsel to the anti-graft agency, prayed the court to grant the application, relying on a 47-paragraph affidavit and 46 exhibits filed in support of the motion.
Okutepa argued that Malami and the other respondents failed to satisfactorily explain the legitimate sources of the assets and urged the court to order their permanent forfeiture.
In response, Adedayo Adedeji, counsel to Malami and other respondents, asked the court to dismiss the application and set aside the interim forfeiture order earlier granted.
Adedeji, relying on a counter-affidavit deposed to by Malami, argued that the EFCC’s case was founded on suspicion rather than credible evidence.
“The court deals with evidence, not suspicion,” he said.
He also contended that the commission relied on extra-judicial statements that ought to be tested during a criminal trial through cross-examination, adding that the court had earlier declined to hear oral evidence in the matter.
According to him, some of the properties were acquired before Malami became attorney-general and could not be regarded as proceeds of crime.
Counsel representing other respondents and companies named in the suit also prayed the court to reject the EFCC’s application.
The matter has now been adjourned to July 10 for judgement.
Malami is also facing two separate criminal charges before another judge of the Abuja federal high court. One of the cases concerns money laundering, while the other is on illegal possession of firearms.
