In order to have the interim order against three of the 57 properties identified by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) for forfeiture to the Federal Government revoked, former Justice Minister Abubakar Malami, SAN, has petitioned a Federal High Court in Abuja.
In the ex-parte motion filed with the court on January 6, Malami, the former Attorney-General of the Federation, AGF, Muhammadu Buhari administration, is contesting the EFCC regarding the property designated as Nos. 9, 18, and 48.
The three properties that are being requested to be discharged are Plot 157, Lamido Crescent, Nasarawa, GRA, and Kano. These properties were acquired on July 31, 2019, but the schedule does not specify the exact sum as No. 9.
They also include the ADC Kadi Malami Foundation Building, which was purchased for N56 million in October 2018 and is listed as Nos. 18 and 48, as well as a bedroom duplex and boys’ quarters at No.12, Yalinga Street, Off Adetokunbo Ademola Crescent, Wuse Il, Abuja.
On January 6, Justice Nwite, who was on vacation, issued an order for the temporary confiscation of 57 items that were allegedly the proceeds of illegal activity connected to Malami.
After the EFCC’s attorney, Ekele Iheanacho, SAN, filed an ex-parte motion to that effect, Justice Nwite issued the order.
The commission was then instructed by the judge to publish the order in a national daily so that interested parties might demonstrate, within 14 days, why all of the property should not be permanently forfeited to the federal government.
However, the former AGF claimed that the anti-corruption agency obtained the interim order through deception and the suppression of important facts in a move on notice submitted on Malami’s behalf by a group of attorneys headed by Joseph Daudu, SAN.
Malami claimed that the action was an attack on his fundamental rights to own property, his presumption of innocence, and his ability to live in harmony with his family. He asked the court to dismiss the lawsuit in order to avoid “conflicting outcomes duplicative litigation.”
Malami requested two orders in the application: “An order of this court vacating, setting aside, and/or discharging the interim order(s) of this court made on January 6, 2026, against the respondent/applicant’s (Malami’s) properties listed as Nos. 9, 18, and 48 in the schedule of properties attached to the interim order of forfeiture of January 6, 2026, the said properties having been duly declared in the respondent/applicant’s asset declaration forms during his tenure as a public official, and No. 48 is held in trust for the late Khadi Malami Nassarawa.
“An order of this court prohibiting the applicant/respondent (EFCC), acting alone or through its servants, agents, and proxies, from interfering with the respondent/applicant’s (Malami’s) properties in question or disturbing the respondent/applicant’s ownership, possession, and control thereof in the course of purportedly giving effect to the order of this honorable court made on January 6, 2026.”
Daudu said in a 14-ground argument that there is no prima facie evidence linking the assets Nos. 9, 18, and 48 that are the subject of interim forfeiture, particularly those included in Malami’s numerous asset declaration forms, to any particular offense or illegal action.
He said that in 2019 and 2023, respectively, Malami submitted asset disclosure forms to the Code of Conduct Bureau (CCB) that listed the assets as Nos. 9 and 18.
According to him, the former AGF holds property No. 48 in trust for the benefit of his late father, Late Kadi Malami’s inheritance.
“The numerous asset declaration forms from 2019 to 2023 have explicitly described and shown these assets, their value, and their root of title.
Daudu stated, “The aforementioned declaration is prima facie evidence of the legitimacy of the acquisition and ownership of the properties.”
