Malami asks court to set aside interim forfeiture order

Former Justice Minister Abubakar Malami, SAN, has prayed the Federal High Court in Abuja to vacate the interim order made against three of the 57 property listed by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) for forfeiture to the Federal Government.

Malami, former Attorney-General of the Federation (AGF) during Muhammadu Buhari administration, is challenging the EFCC on the property listed as No. 9, No. 18 and No. 48 in the ex-parte motion it brought to the court on Jan. 6.

The three property, sought to be discharged, include Plot 157, Lamido Crescent, Nasarawa, GRA, Kano, purchased in July 31, 2019 with no specific amount stated in the schedule as No. 9.

They also include a Bedroom Duplex and Boys Quarters at No.12, Yalinga Street, Off Adetokunbo Ademola Crescent, Wuse Il, Abuja, purchased in October 2018 at N150 million, and ADC Kadi Malami Foundation Building, bought at N56 million listed as No. 18 and No. 48.

Justice Nwite, who sat as vacation judge, had, on Jan. 6, ordered the temporary forfeiture of 57 property suspected to be proceeds of unlawful activities linked to Mr Malami.

Justice Nwite had granted the order following an ex-parte motion moved by the EFCC’s lawyer, Ekele Iheanacho, SAN, to the effect.

The judge then directed the commission to publish the order in a national daily for interested person(s) to show cause, within 14 days, why all the property should not be permanently forfeited to the Federal Government.

The multi-billion naira landed property are located in Abuja, Kebbi, Kano and Kaduna States.

See also  Wike approves promotion of 2,000 FCT workers

However, in a motion on notice filed on Malami’s behalf by a team of lawyers led by Joseph Daudu, SAN, the ex-AGF alleged that the anti-corruption agency got the interim order by suppression of material facts and misrepresentation.

Malami, who urged the court to dismiss the suit to prevent “conflicting outcomes duplicative litigation,” argued that the proceeding was an assault on his fundamental right to owned property, his presumption of innocence and his right to live in peace with his family.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *