Muhammed Abubakar, Reporting
EMBATTLED former Attorney-General of the Federation and Minister of Justice, Abubakar Malami SAN, has filed a request at the Federal High Court in Abuja to set aside an interim forfeiture order placed on three properties among 57 assets recently listed by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) for forfeiture to the Federal Government.
Mr Malami, who served under the administration of former President Muhammadu Buhari, is specifically contesting the inclusion of properties listed as numbers 9, 18, and 48 in the ex-parte motion filed by the EFCC and granted by the court on 6 January 2026.
The three properties he seeks to have discharged from the forfeiture order are: Plot 157, Lamido Crescent, Nasarawa GRA, Kano, listed as No. 9 and reportedly purchased on 31 July 2019 (with no purchase price stated in the EFCC’s schedule); a four-bedroom duplex with boys’ quarters at No. 12, Yalinga Street, off Adetokunbo Ademola Crescent, Wuse II, Abuja, acquired in October 2018 for ₦150 million and listed as No. 18; and the ADC Kadi Malami Foundation Building, purchased for ₦56 million and listed as No. 48.
Justice Emeka Nwite, who sat as the vacation judge, had on 6 January ordered the temporary forfeiture of the 57 properties, which are suspected to be proceeds of unlawful activities allegedly linked to Mr Malami.
The order followed an ex-parte application moved by the EFCC’s counsel, Ekele Iheanacho SAN. The court also directed the anti-corruption agency to publish the interim forfeiture order in a national newspaper, inviting interested persons to show cause within 14 days why the properties should not be permanently forfeited to the Federal Government.
However, in a motion on notice filed through a legal team led by Joseph Daudu SAN, Mr Malami has accused the EFCC of obtaining the interim order through the suppression of material facts and misrepresentation.
He has urged the court to dismiss the forfeiture proceedings, arguing that they amount to an abuse of court process capable of leading to “conflicting outcomes and duplicative litigation.”
The former AGF also contended that the action infringes upon his fundamental right to property, his presumption of innocence, and his right to live peacefully with his family.
In the application, Mr Malami sought two principal forms of relief. The first is an order vacating, setting aside, or discharging the interim forfeiture orders made on 6 January 2026 as they relate to properties listed as Nos. 9, 18, and 48. He grounds this request on the argument that the assets were duly declared in his asset declaration forms throughout his tenure as a public officer. He further stated that property No. 48 is held in trust for the estate of his late father, Kadi Malami of Nasarawa.
The second relief seeks an order restraining the EFCC, its agents, or proxies from interfering with the said properties or disturbing his ownership, possession, and control of them in the course of enforcing the interim forfeiture order.
In a 14-ground argument in support of the motion, Mr Daudu maintained that the three properties were not linked by any prima facie evidence to unlawful activity or to any specific criminal offence.
He said Mr Malami had duly declared properties Nos. 9 and 18 in his asset declaration forms submitted to the Code of Conduct Bureau (CCB) in 2019 and 2023 respectively, while property No. 48 was declared as a trust asset belonging to the estate of his late father.
According to Mr Daudu, the assets, their values, and their roots of title were clearly disclosed in Mr Malami’s asset declaration forms spanning 2019 to 2023, which he argued constitutes prima facie proof of their legitimacy.
“These assets, their value, and their root of title have been clearly stated and specifically demonstrated in the various asset declaration forms spanning from 2019 to 2023,” Mr Daudu told the court. “The declaration above is prima facie evidence of the legitimacy of the acquisition and ownership of the properties,” he added.
The court is expected to fix a date to hear arguments from both parties on the motion.
