A Federal High Court in Abuja has reserved judgment in the EFCC’s high-profile bid to permanently seize 57 properties allegedly linked to former Attorney General of the Federation, Abubakar Malami (SAN).
Justice Joyce Abdulmalik fixed July 6, 2026, as the date for her ruling, following a tense and procedurally loaded session on Tuesday in which senior lawyers on both sides laid out their final arguments in a case that strikes at the heart of Nigeria’s anti-corruption drive and raises uncomfortable questions about the conduct of one of the country’s most powerful former legal officers.
At the center of Tuesday’s proceedings was a deceptively straightforward legal question: should 57 properties, allegedly traced to Malami, be permanently forfeited to the federal government?
The EFCC, represented by the formidable J.S. Okutepa (SAN), made its position unambiguous. The commission had come to court armed with a 77-paragraph counter affidavit, deposed to by one of its operatives, Adebayo Daniels, and accompanied by eight exhibits and a written address.
Okutepa urged the court to find that the respondents had failed to demonstrate why the properties should not be permanently forfeited and called on Justice Abdulmalik to grant the application accordingly.
“My lord, we rely on all these processes in urging the court to hold that the respondents have failed to show cause and to grant the application for forfeiture of the properties to the federal government,” Okutepa submitted.
It was a pointed and direct appeal, the EFCC’s clearest signal yet that it considers its case airtight.
But Malami’s legal team was far from conceding ground. Led by Adedayo Adedeji (SAN), the defense mounted a vigorous counteroffensive, deploying no fewer than 16 motions seeking to unravel the very foundation of the forfeiture proceedings, specifically, an interim forfeiture order granted by the court on January 6, 2026.
Those 16 motions, which collectively seek to set aside the interim order, reflect a deliberate strategy of procedural attrition, raising enough legal questions to potentially stall or complicate the EFCC’s path to a final forfeiture order.
Adedeji also pressed for an extension of time, filing an application dated April 21, 2026, and a counteraffidavit notably deposed to by Malami himself in which the former minister personally entered the record to contest the EFCC’s claims.
In his own words before the court, Malami’s position was unequivocal: the 57 properties, he argued, “are not proceeds of crime but allegations based on suspicion.” It is a defense that underscores what is likely to be the central narrative of the judgment: whether the EFCC has met the legal threshold to justify permanent forfeiture or whether the commission is acting on circumstantial inference rather than hard evidence.
The legal architecture of this case rests significantly on that January 6 interim forfeiture order, a court-sanctioned freeze on the assets, which the defense is now aggressively seeking to dismantle.
Interim forfeiture orders, while not final judgments of guilt or criminal liability, carry enormous practical weight: they prevent the disposal, transfer, or concealment of assets while proceedings are ongoing.
The EFCC’s move to convert that interim order into a final and irreversible forfeiture is standard procedure under Nigeria’s anti-money laundering and asset recovery framework, but it is a step that courts do not take lightly, particularly when the respondent is a figure of Malami’s stature and legal pedigree.
Abubakar Malami served as Attorney General of the Federation and Minister of Justice from 2015 to 2023 under the administration of former President Muhammadu Buhari, one of the longest tenures in that office in recent Nigerian history.
During his tenure, Malami was both a key architect of government policy and a lightning rod for controversy, frequently clashing with other anti-corruption institutions and drawing criticism from civil society groups who questioned his independence and impartiality.
That a man who once sat atop Nigeria’s prosecutorial and legal machinery now finds himself the subject of a high-profile EFCC forfeiture action carries an unmistakable irony and sends a signal, regardless of the eventual outcome, that no former official is beyond scrutiny.
With judgment now fixed for July 6, 2026, the court faces a multi-layered decision. Justice Abdulmalik must not only rule on the EFCC’s application for final forfeiture but also contend with the 16 pending defense motions and the question of the extension of time, a procedural logjam that suggests the matter may not be fully resolved even after the July ruling.
Legal analysts tracking the case note that a final forfeiture order, if granted, would represent one of the most consequential civil asset recoveries in Nigeria’s post-2015 anti-corruption era. If denied or deferred, it would raise serious questions about the evidentiary standards being applied in politically sensitive forfeiture proceedings.
Either way, July 6 promises to be a landmark day in Nigeria’s long, complicated, and unfinished reckoning with corruption at the highest levels of public office.
WHAT YOU SHOULD KNOW
A Federal High Court in Abuja has reserved judgment until July 6, 2026, in the EFCC’s bid to permanently seize 57 properties allegedly linked to former Attorney General of the Federation, Abubakar Malami.
While the EFCC insists the properties are proceeds of crime and that the respondents have failed to prove otherwise, Malami maintains the allegations are based on mere suspicion.
