EFCC Secures Permanent Forfeiture Of 48 Properties Linked To Malami

According to Ireporter Online, the order was granted on Wednesday, July 15, 2026, by Justice Joyce Abdulmalik of the Federal High Court sitting in Abuja, following an application filed by the anti-graft agency.

The court ruled that the EFCC had successfully established reasonable grounds to believe that the properties were acquired through proceeds suspected to be from unlawful activities and that the respondents failed to provide sufficient evidence proving the legitimacy of the funds used for their acquisition.

Justice Abdulmalik stated that the central issue before the court was not the ownership of the assets but the source of the funds used to purchase them.

Relying on the provisions of Section 17 of the Advance Fee Fraud and Other Fraud Related Offences Act, the judge granted the EFCC’s request for the permanent forfeiture of the 48 properties to the Federal Government.

The court noted that the respondents were unable to adequately dispel the suspicion surrounding the acquisition of the properties, leading to the final forfeiture order.

However, Justice Abdulmalik rejected the EFCC’s request to permanently forfeit nine other properties located in Kebbi and Kaduna states, ruling that the commission failed to provide enough evidence linking those assets to unlawful activities. The earlier interim forfeiture order placed on the properties was subsequently overturned.

During earlier proceedings, EFCC counsel, Jibrin Okutepa (SAN), urged the court to approve the forfeiture application, stating that the commission’s case was supported by a 47-paragraph affidavit and 46 documentary exhibits.

Okutepa argued that the evidence presented showed that Malami and the other respondents failed to prove that the properties were acquired through legitimate means, asking the court to transfer ownership of the assets to the Federal Government.

However, counsel representing Malami and the other respondents, Adedayo Adedeji (SAN), opposed the application, urging the court to dismiss the EFCC’s request.

Adedeji argued that the respondents had provided explanations through a 109-paragraph affidavit personally sworn by Malami, which was intended to demonstrate that the properties were not acquired with proceeds of criminal activities.

The lawyer maintained that the EFCC’s case was based largely on suspicion rather than concrete evidence and asked the court to set aside the earlier interim forfeiture order.