The Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) has secured a final court order forfeiting 48 properties linked to former Attorney-General of the Federation and Minister of Justice, Abubakar Malami.
The ruling was delivered on Wednesday, July 15, 2026, by Justice Joyce Abdulmalik of the Federal High Court in Abuja.
The court held that the EFCC successfully established reasonable grounds to believe the properties were proceeds of unlawful activities and were not acquired through legitimate sources of income.
Justice Abdulmalik stated that the key issue before the court was not who owned the properties, but whether the funds used to acquire them were lawful.
Invoking Section 17 of the Advance Fee Fraud and Other Fraud Related Offences Act, the judge granted the EFCC’s application for the permanent forfeiture of the 48 properties.
According to the court, the respondents failed to dispel the reasonable suspicion that the assets were acquired through proceeds of unlawful activities.
However, the court refused the EFCC’s request to forfeit nine additional properties located in Kebbi and Kaduna states, ruling that the anti-graft agency did not provide sufficient evidence to prove they were linked to criminal activities. As a result, the interim forfeiture order on those properties was set aside.
During earlier proceedings, EFCC counsel Jibrin Okutepa (SAN) urged the court to grant the application, noting that the motion, filed in February, was backed by a 47-paragraph affidavit and 46 supporting exhibits.
Okutepa told the court that the application, contained in three volumes, presented enough evidence to justify the permanent forfeiture of the properties. He argued that Malami and the other respondents failed to demonstrate that the assets were lawfully acquired and asked the court to transfer ownership of the properties to the Federal Government.
Counsel to Malami and the other respondents, Adedayo Adedeji (SAN), opposed the application, asking the court to dismiss it.
He informed the court that the respondents had filed a counter-application on February 27, supported by a 109-paragraph affidavit personally sworn to by Malami, explaining why the forfeiture request should not be granted.
Adedeji urged the court to vacate the interim forfeiture order, insisting that the respondents had shown the properties were not purchased with proceeds of crime. He further argued that the EFCC’s case relied largely on suspicion rather than concrete evidence directly linking the assets to any criminal activity.