THIS DAWN — A federal high court in Abuja has ordered the interim forfeiture of 57 properties allegedly linked to Abubakar Malami, former attorney-general of the federation (AGF) and minister of justice, as well as his two sons.
The ruling, delivered by Justice Emeka Nwite, follows an ex parte application filed by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC).
The properties, valued at over ₦212 billion, are suspected to be proceeds of unlawful activities.
The EFCC, Nigeria’s foremost anti-graft agency, approached the court seeking forfeiture of assets it claimed were acquired through illicit means.
Counsel to the commission, Ekele Iheanacho, argued for the forfeiture.
He said that the properties were reasonably suspected to have been purchased with funds derived from unlawful activities.
Justice Nwite, after reviewing the application, agreed with the EFCC’s position and granted the interim forfeiture order.
His ruling emphasized the need to safeguard public interest by preventing the continued use or enjoyment of assets suspected to have been acquired illegally.
Details of the Court Order
In his pronouncement, Justice Nwite stated:
“It is hereby ordered that an interim order of this honourable court is hereby made forfeiting to the Federal Government of Nigeria the properties described in Schedule 1 below, which are reasonably suspected to be proceeds of unlawful activities.”
The order mandates that the EFCC publish the interim forfeiture in a national daily newspaper.
This publication serves as a public notice.
It invited any individual or organization with an interest in the assets to appear before the court within 14 days to show cause why a final forfeiture order should not be made.
The case has been adjourned to January 27.
The court will receive a compliance report on the publication order and consider any claims from interested parties.
The properties in question span multiple locations and are collectively valued at more than ₦212 billion.
While the EFCC has not publicly detailed each property, the scale of the forfeiture underscores the seriousness of the allegations.
The assets reportedly include high-value real estate developments, commercial buildings, and luxury residences.
The interim forfeiture does not amount to a final judgment of guilt but is a preventive measure.
It ensures that the assets remain under government control pending the conclusion of investigations and legal proceedings.
The Properties
The properties listed span Abuja, Kebbi, Kano, and Kaduna states.
They include luxury hotels, duplexes, plazas, warehouses, shopping units and residential estates acquired over several years.
Among them are:
- a luxury duplex on Amazon Street in Maitama purchased in December 2022 for N500 million and later valued at N5.95 billion after enhancement;
- a two-winged storey building on Onitsha Crescent, Area 11, Garki, formerly Harmonia Hotels Limited, acquired in December 2018 for N7 billion; and,
- a five-storey hotel building in Jabi, now operating as Meethaq Hotels Ltd with 53 rooms, valued at N8.4 billion after completion.
Other assets include:
- Meethaq Hotels Ltd in Maitama with 15 rooms;
- terraces in Asokoro;
- multiple residential properties in Gwarimpa, Apo Legislative Quarters and Wuse II;
- warehouses in Wuse Market;
- shopping units in Vegas Mall and Shariff Plaza; as well as,
- properties in Kano, Kaduna and Birnin Kebbi, including:
- plazas,
- bungalows,
- land, and,
- housing units.
Implications for Malami and His Family
Abubakar Malami, who served as Nigeria’s attorney-general and minister of justice from 2015 to 2023, has long been a controversial figure.
His tenure was marked by high-profile prosecutions, but also allegations of abuse of office and corruption.
The inclusion of his two sons in the forfeiture order suggests that the EFCC believes the assets may have been acquired through family-linked transactions.
For Malami, the ruling represents a significant legal and reputational challenge.
As a former chief law officer of the country, being linked to properties suspected of unlawful acquisition raises questions about integrity and accountability.
The case reflects Nigeria’s ongoing struggle with corruption and asset recovery.
Interim forfeiture orders have become a common tool for the EFCC.
It allows the government to temporarily seize assets while investigations continue.
This approach prevents suspects from disposing of or hiding properties during legal proceedings.
However, critics argue that interim forfeiture can sometimes be abused.
They claim it may target political opponents or individuals without sufficient evidence.
The requirement for publication and public notice is designed to mitigate such concerns.
It gives affected parties the opportunity to contest the forfeiture in court.
Next Steps
The January 27 hearing will be pivotal.
Interested parties—including Malami and his sons—will have the chance to present evidence or arguments against the final forfeiture of the properties.
If the court is satisfied that the assets were lawfully acquired, they may be returned.
Conversely, if the EFCC substantiates its claims, the properties will be permanently forfeited to the federal government.
The outcome will not only determine the fate of the 57 properties but also serve as a litmus test for Nigeria’s anti-corruption framework.
A final forfeiture would reinforce the EFCC’s mandate and demonstrate the judiciary’s willingness to act against high-profile figures.
The interim forfeiture of 57 properties worth over ₦212 billion allegedly linked to former AGF Abubakar Malami and his sons marks one of the most significant anti-corruption actions in recent years.
While the ruling is provisional, it highlights the judiciary’s role in safeguarding public assets.
It also underscores the EFCC’s determination to pursue cases involving powerful individuals.
As the matter returns to court later this month, Nigerians will be watching closely.
The case could either strengthen confidence in the country’s anti-corruption institutions or fuel skepticism if due process is perceived to be compromised.
For now, the properties remain under government control, pending the next chapter in this unfolding legal battle.
