The judge picked the original date of 6 July in May, when parties argued for and against EFCC’s application for the final forfeiture of assets linked to Mr Malami
The Federal High Court in Abuja on Monday set a new date for the judgement in the forfeiture case involving 57 properties linked to former Attorney General of the Federation, Abubakar Malami, his family members and associates.
The court, which had earlier fixed Monday to deliver the verdict, has now set Friday (10 July) as the new judgement day.
The Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC), which instituted the forfeiture proceedings, reported the postponement in a statement on Monday—the date Judge Joyce Abdulmalik originally picked to deliver her verdict.
Ms Abdulmalik picked the original date of 6 July in May, when parties argued for and against the forfeiture request.
EFCC’s statement offered no reason for the postponement.
During the 26 May hearing, the court adjourned for judgement after hearing Mr Malami, companies and other individuals who claimed legitimate interests in the assets.
The EFCC sought the order of final forfeiture of the properties to the federal government following the court’s earlier order of interim forfeiture.
EFCC, which is prosecuting Mr Malami and his relatives on money laundering charges involving alleged illegitimate acquisition of assets in a separate trial before the judge, said the assets under interim forfeiture orders were proceeds of Mr Malami’s unlawful activities.
During the assets forfeiture hearing in May, the prosecution lawyer Jibrin Okutepa, a Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN), moved a motion filed in February for the final forfeiture of the listed assets.
The application sought the final forfeiture of 57 properties and was supported by a 47-paragraph affidavit with 46 exhibits.
Lawyer to the respondents, Adedayo Adedeji, also a SAN, moved an application filed on 27 February, supported by a 109-paragraph affidavit sworn by Mr Malami himself.
Mr Adedeji urged the court not only to set aside the earlier interim order, but also to hold that the respondents had demonstrated that the properties “were not acquired from proceeds of crime” and therefore should not be subjected to interim or final forfeiture to the federal government.
Responding, Mr Okutepa, said his application backed by a 77-paragraph counter-affidavit filed on 5 May and supported by 80 exhibits marked EFCC A to EFCC E.
He urged the court to hold that Mr Malami and other respondents had “woefully failed to show cause” that the properties “were acquired legitimately,” and asked the court to order the forfeiture of the properties to the Federal Government.
Reacting, Mr Adedeji argued that the counter-affidavit was “incompetent” and “unknown to law.”
The respondents’ lawyer also argued that the EFCC merely relied on “suspicion” to allege that the properties were acquired with proceeds of crime. “The court deals with evidence, not suspicion,” he said.
Mr Adedeji further argued that the prosecution relied on “extra judicial evidence” ordinarily meant for cross examination during criminal trial proceedings as evidence in the current case.
He said there was no way the court could properly determine the matter without oral evidence, which the court had earlier refused.
He maintained that the properties, including some acquired before Mr Malami assumed office, “were not proceeds of crime.”
The respondents’ lawyer also moved several other separate counter-affidavits and further affidavits on behalf of other respondents and companies listed in the matter, urging the court to refuse the forfeiture request. All aimed at showing that the properties were “legitimately acquired.”
Lawyers representing other individuals and companies seeking to show cause also urged the court to dismiss the final forfeiture application “in the interest of justice,” while the prosecution asked the court to dismiss their counter affidavits.
After all parties adopted their processes, the judge adjourned the matter until 6 July for ruling and judgment, now rescheduled to be delivered on Friday.
PREMIUM TIMES reported that up to 57 assets seized from Mr Malami, valued at N212.8 billion by the EFCC, are currently under an interim forfeiture order of the Federal High Court in Abuja.
In early January, the court issued the interim forfeiture order over the 57 properties after the prosecution told Judge Emeka Nwite, who handled the case as at the time as a vacation judge, that the assets were proceeds of unlawful activities.
The multi-billion naira properties, largely luxury residential and commercial assets, are located in Abuja, Kebbi, Kano and Kaduna states.
But Mr Malami insists he acquired the assets legitimately. The case was later transferred to Judge Abdulmalik after the court vacation ended.
On 21 April, the prosecution told Judge Abdumalik that the lead lawyer for the respondents had an engagement at the Court of Appeal.
Responding, the judge emphasised the need for strict compliance with court directives. She noted that the interim forfeiture order had been published with a 14 day notice to allow interested parties show cause.
She subsequently ordered all parties and interested persons to file and serve their processes on or before 27 April.
The judge also warned lawyers against conduct aimed at delaying proceedings.
