ABUJA — The Federal High Court in Abuja on Monday postponed judgment in the forfeiture suit filed by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) against 57 properties linked to former Attorney-General of the Federation, Abubakar Malami, SAN, to July 10.
Justice Joyce Abdulmalik had earlier fixed today, May 26, for the delivery of judgment. The case, listed as number four on Monday’s cause list, did not proceed, and no reason was given for the adjournment. Three other cases on the 13-item list were also given new dates.
At the last sitting, EFCC’s counsel, Jibrin Okutepa, SAN, and counsel for Malami and other respondents, Adedayo Adedeji, SAN, had adopted their processes and presented arguments for and against the suit.
The anti-graft agency is seeking the final forfeiture of the properties on the grounds that they are reasonably suspected to be proceeds of unlawful activities.
Moving the motion on the previous adjourned date, Okutepa told the court that the application, filed in February, was supported by a 47-paragraph affidavit and 46 exhibits contained in “three volumes.” He urged the court to grant the request.
Relying on the EFCC’s filings, he asked the court to hold that Malami and other respondents had “woefully failed to show cause” that the properties “were acquired legitimately,” and to order that they be permanently forfeited to the Federal Government.
In response, Adedeji said the respondents filed a 109-paragraph counter-affidavit on Feb. 27, deposed to by Malami himself, to show cause why the final forfeiture order should not be made.
He urged the court to set aside the earlier interim forfeiture order and to find that the respondents had demonstrated the properties “were not acquired from proceeds of crime.”
“The court deals with evidence, not suspicion,” Adedeji argued, asking the court to discountenance the EFCC’s submission. He accused the commission of relying on suspicion and “extrajudicial evidence” that would ordinarily require cross-examination in a criminal trial.
He added that the court could not properly determine the matter without oral evidence, which it had earlier declined to allow. According to him, some of the properties, including those acquired before Malami assumed office, “were not proceeds of crime.”
Adedeji also filed additional counter-affidavits and further affidavits on behalf of other respondents and companies named in the suit, urging the court to reject the forfeiture request.
Other lawyers representing individuals and companies also asked the court to dismiss the application in the interest of justice.
Justice Abdulmalik has now adjourned the matter to July 10 for judgment.
