In a landmark anti-corruption ruling, the Federal High Court in Abuja has ordered the final forfeiture of 48 out of 57 properties valued at about ₦212 billion linked to former Attorney-General of the Federation and Minister of Justice, Abubakar Malami (SAN).
Justice Joyce Abdulmalik granted the application filed by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC), dismissing objections raised by Malami, members of his family and several companies claiming ownership of the assets.
Delivering judgment, the court held that the central issue was not the ownership of the properties but whether the funds used to acquire them were lawfully obtained.
“The issue before the court is not who owns the property, but how legitimate are the funds used to acquire the properties,” Justice Abdulmalik ruled.
The assets, spread across Abuja, Kebbi, Kano and Kaduna States, include luxury hotels, high-end duplexes, shopping plazas, warehouses, residential estates, educational institutions, industrial facilities and commercial buildings.
Among the high-profile assets ordered forfeited are the Meethaq Hotels in Maitama and Jabi, Abuja; Rayhaan University and its multiple campuses in Kebbi State; the Rayhaan Agro Allied Factory; Azbir Hotel and Arena; Rayhaan Model Academy; Rayhaan Primary and Secondary School; Zeennoor Hotel in Kano; and several luxury residential properties in Abuja, Kano and Birnin Kebbi.
The ruling marks one of the largest civil asset forfeitures in Nigeria’s history and represents a major victory for the EFCC in its efforts to recover assets believed to have been acquired through illicit means.
The anti-graft agency had earlier secured an interim forfeiture order covering the 57 properties before approaching the court for a final order. Following Wednesday’s judgment, 48 of the properties will now be permanently transferred to the Federal Government, while the remaining assets were excluded from the final forfeiture order.
The judgment is expected to have significant legal and political implications, as it underscores the judiciary’s readiness to uphold asset recovery proceedings where the legitimacy of wealth cannot be satisfactorily established.
About The Author
