More trouble for Malami as EFCC pushes court to seize 57 properties

The Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) has stepped up its legal battle against former Attorney-General of the Federation and Minister of Justice, Abubakar Malami (SAN), asking the Federal High Court in Abuja to grant a final order forfeiting 57 properties allegedly linked to him to the Federal Government.

The anti-graft agency argued that the assets were reasonably suspected to have been acquired through unlawful activities and insisted that the respondents in the case had failed to provide sufficient evidence to overturn an earlier interim forfeiture order issued by the court.

The request was made in a motion on notice filed before Justice Joyce Abdulmalik by a team of EFCC lawyers led by Senior Advocates of Nigeria, Jibrin Okutepa and Ekele Iheanacho.

Listed as respondents in the suit are Malami, his son Abdulaziz Abubakar, his wife Hajia Bashir Asabe, and Abiru’ Rahman Abubakar Malami.

Several companies and individuals believed to be connected to the former minister were also named in the suit. They include Rayhaan Bustan and Agro Allied Ltd, Mountain View Gold and Jewellery Ltd, Amasdul Oil and Gas Ltd, Azbir Arena Nigeria Ltd and Meethaq Hotels Ltd.

Others listed are Rayhaan University Ltd/GTE, Rayhaan Hotels Ltd, Zeenoor Hotels Ltd, Kawsar Ben of Brahim, Alhaji Muktaka Usman Junju and Real Edge Agro Services Ltd.

The case, marked FHC/ABJ/CS/20/2026, was filed under Section 17 of the Advance Fee Fraud and Other Fraud-Related Offences Act, 2006, which empowers courts to order the forfeiture of assets suspected to be linked to criminal activities even in the absence of a criminal conviction.

In its application, the EFCC urged the court to convert the interim forfeiture order earlier granted into a permanent forfeiture.

Specifically, the commission requested “a final order of this honourable court forfeiting to the Federal Government of Nigeria the properties described in the schedule below, which were found by the commission as properties reasonably suspected to be proceeds of unlawful activities.”

The commission told the court that the interim order had already been published in THISDAY Newspaper on January 9, 2026, in line with legal requirements that allow interested parties to show cause why the assets should not be permanently seized.

However, EFCC counsel Okutepa argued that none of the respondents had presented convincing reasons for the court to set aside the interim order.

“No sufficient cause has been shown why the properties under the interim forfeiture order should not be finally forfeited to the Federal Government of Nigeria,” he said.

An affidavit filed in support of the motion and deposed to by EFCC investigating officer Daniel Adebayo provided further details about the investigation that led to the forfeiture proceedings.

According to Adebayo, the EFCC launched its investigation following a series of petitions submitted by various organisations accusing the former minister of corruption, abuse of office and fraud.

The investigator stated that the commission conducted extensive inquiries, including obtaining financial records from commercial banks and the Central Bank of Nigeria, as well as interviewing individuals connected to the transactions under review.

The EFCC also examined Malami’s legitimate earnings during his tenure as Attorney-General of the Federation between 2015 and 2023.

According to the affidavit, the former minister received a total of N89,664,000 in salaries during the eight-year period, amounting to an average monthly salary of about N962,663.

He was also paid N12,158,400 as severance allowance at the end of his tenure.

In addition, Malami declared that he received N253,608,500 as estacodes for official foreign trips during his time in office.

The commission, however, argued that these earnings were not proportionate to the value and scale of the properties allegedly linked to him.

“Mr Abubakar Malami, SAN, was the Honourable Minister of Justice and Attorney-General of the Federation from 2015 to 2023,” the affidavit stated.

“His lawful income within that period is manifestly disproportionate to the properties he is suspected to have acquired.”

The EFCC further alleged that some of the assets were acquired through proxies, relatives and corporate entities believed to be linked to the former minister.

Investigators claimed that several of the companies involved operate under the umbrella of Rayhaan Group Ltd, which they alleged has connections to Malami.

The commission also alleged that some of the buildings constructed in Kano and Kebbi States lacked the required development permits or approvals from relevant authorities.

According to investigators, the absence of proper building approvals suggested an attempt to conceal the origin of the funds used in developing the properties.

The assets listed in the forfeiture application include 57 landed properties located in Abuja, Kebbi, Kano and Kaduna States, as well as temporary and permanent sites linked to Rayhaan University in Kebbi.

The case has already passed through several judicial stages.

On January 6, a Federal High Court presided over by Justice Emeka Nwite granted an interim forfeiture order following an ex parte application filed by the EFCC.

The court also directed the anti-graft agency to publish the order in a national newspaper to enable interested parties to contest the forfeiture within 14 days.

After the court’s vacation, the matter was reassigned to Justice Obiora Egwuatu, who later recused himself from the case for personal reasons.

The case was subsequently reassigned to Justice Joyce Abdulmalik, who is now presiding over the proceedings.

Malami and the other respondents have since challenged the EFCC’s action and asked the court to vacate the interim forfeiture order.

Justice Abdulmalik has fixed April 21 for the hearing of the EFCC’s application seeking a final order forfeiting the properties to the Federal Government.

The outcome of the case is expected to determine whether the assets will be permanently seized or returned to the respondents.