ABUJA — The Federal High Court in Abuja on Monday adjourned judgment in the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission’s (EFCC) forfeiture suit seeking the permanent forfeiture of 57 properties linked to former Attorney-General of the Federation (AGF) and Minister of Justice, Abubakar Malami (SAN), until July 10.
Justice Joyce Abdulmalik had earlier fixed Monday for the delivery of judgment after hearing final arguments from counsel to the parties.
However, when the matter, listed as the fourth case on the court’s cause list, came up on Monday, the judgment was not delivered. No reason was given for the adjournment, although three other matters on the day’s cause list were also rescheduled.
The EFCC is seeking a final forfeiture order over the 57 properties, alleging that they are reasonably suspected to be proceeds of unlawful activities.
At the last hearing, counsel to the EFCC, Jibrin Okutepa (SAN), urged the court to grant the commission’s application, relying on a motion filed in February and supported by a 47-paragraph affidavit with 46 exhibits.
Describing the application as being contained in “three volumes,” Okutepa argued that Malami and the other respondents had failed to satisfactorily show that the properties were lawfully acquired.
He urged the court to order the permanent forfeiture of the properties to the Federal Government.
Responding, counsel to Malami and the other respondents, Adedayo Adedeji (SAN), opposed the application, relying on a counter-affidavit filed on February 27 and deposed to by Malami.
He told the court that the respondents had sufficiently shown cause why the interim forfeiture order should not be made permanent.
Adedeji urged the court to discharge the earlier interim forfeiture order, arguing that the respondents had demonstrated that the properties were not proceeds of crime.
According to him, the EFCC’s case was founded largely on suspicion rather than credible evidence.
“The court deals with evidence, not suspicion,” he submitted.
He also argued that the anti-graft agency relied on extrajudicial statements that ought to be subjected to cross-examination during a criminal trial rather than being relied upon as evidence in the forfeiture proceedings.
Adedeji further maintained that some of the properties in question were acquired before Malami assumed office as Attorney-General of the Federation, insisting they could not reasonably be linked to any alleged criminal conduct.
He also moved separate counter-affidavits and further affidavits on behalf of other respondents and companies joined in the suit, urging the court to dismiss the EFCC’s application.
Other counsel representing individual respondents and corporate entities similarly asked the court to refuse the request for a final forfeiture order, arguing that the commission had failed to establish its case.
Following Monday’s proceedings, Justice Abdulmalik adjourned the matter until July 10 for judgment.