The Federal High Court in Abuja has postponed judgment in the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission’s (EFCC) forfeiture suit involving 57 properties allegedly linked to a former Attorney-General of the Federation and Minister of Justice, Abubakar Malami.
This online medium reports that the judgment, which was scheduled to be delivered on Friday, could not proceed because the presiding judge, Justice Joyce Abdulmalik, did not sit.
The court subsequently fixed July 15 for the ruling.
Justice Abdulmalik had earlier scheduled July 6 for judgment after lawyers representing the EFCC, Malami and the other respondents concluded their arguments.
The anti-graft agency is asking the court to order the final forfeiture of the 57 properties to the Federal Government.
The commission alleged that the assets were reasonably suspected to have been acquired with proceeds of unlawful activities.
At the previous sitting, EFCC counsel, Jibrin Okutepa (SAN), urged the court to grant the forfeiture application.
Okutepa said the motion, filed in February, was supported by a 47-paragraph affidavit and 46 exhibits.
He told the court that the commission’s application was contained in three volumes and provided sufficient grounds for the properties to be permanently forfeited.
Relying on the documents before the court, the senior lawyer argued that Malami and the other respondents had “woefully failed to show cause” that the properties “were acquired legitimately”.
He consequently asked the court to transfer ownership of the disputed assets permanently to the Federal Government.
Counsel to Malami and the other respondents, Adedayo Adedeji (SAN), opposed the EFCC’s application and urged the court to dismiss it.
Adedeji said the respondents filed their application on February 27 and supported it with a 109-paragraph affidavit personally deposed to by Malami.
He explained that the affidavit was intended to show why the court should not grant the commission’s request for final forfeiture.
The lawyer urged the court to set aside the interim forfeiture order earlier made and hold that the respondents had established that the properties were not purchased with proceeds of criminal activities.
He accused the EFCC of basing its case largely on suspicion rather than concrete evidence linking the assets to any crime.
“The court deals with evidence, not suspicion,” Adedeji said.
He asked the court to reject the submissions made by the EFCC’s counsel.
Respondents Fault EFCC Evidence
Adedeji further argued that the anti-graft agency relied on what he described as “extrajudicial evidence” that would ordinarily be tested through cross-examination in a criminal trial.
According to him, the court could not fairly determine the dispute without hearing oral evidence from the parties.
He recalled that the court had earlier declined a request for oral testimony and maintained that this affected the proper evaluation of the EFCC’s allegations.
The senior lawyer also told the court that some of the disputed properties were acquired before Malami became Attorney-General of the Federation.
He insisted that the assets “were not proceeds of crime”.
Adedeji also adopted separate counter-affidavits and further affidavits filed on behalf of some of the companies and individuals listed as respondents in the suit.
He urged the court to dismiss the forfeiture application and discharge the earlier interim order placed on the properties.
The parties will now return to court on July 15 for judgment.
