The Federal High Court in Abuja has ordered the final forfeiture of more than 40 properties linked to former Attorney General of the Federation and Minister of Justice, Abubakar Malami, in favour of the Federal Government.

Justice Joyce Abdulmalik delivered the ruling on Wednesday after granting an application filed by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC).

The court held that the respondents failed to dispel the commission’s reasonable suspicion that the assets were acquired through unlawful activities.

Before delivering judgment, the court dismissed several applications and motions filed by Malami, members of his family and companies linked to the properties, describing them as lacking merit.

Justice Abdulmalik ruled that the central issue before the court was not the ownership of the properties but whether the funds used to acquire them were lawfully obtained. She held that the respondents failed to rebut the reasonable suspicion raised by the EFCC regarding the source of the assets.

The court relied on Section 17 of the Advance Fee Fraud and Other Fraud Related Offences Act in granting the final forfeiture order.

However, it set aside the interim forfeiture order in respect of some of the properties.

The EFCC had initiated the civil forfeiture proceedings in January, seeking the permanent forfeiture of 57 properties valued at ₦212.8 billion, alleging that they were proceeds of unlawful activities linked to the former attorney general.

An interim forfeiture order was granted on January 16 by Justice Emeka Nwite during the court’s annual vacation. The judge also directed the anti-graft agency to publish the order in a national newspaper to allow interested parties to challenge the forfeiture.

Following the publication, Malami, his wife Nana Hadiza Malami, his son Abdulaziz Abubakar Malami, and several companies associated with the properties filed objections, arguing that the assets were legally acquired and that the EFCC failed to establish any link between the properties and criminal activity.

They also contended that the commission relied on speculation rather than credible evidence and did not identify any specific offence from which the properties were allegedly derived.

In response, the EFCC maintained that its investigation showed the assets were acquired with proceeds of unlawful activities and held through individuals and companies acting on Malami’s behalf. The commission argued that the law only required it to establish reasonable suspicion, rather than prove its case beyond reasonable doubt.

After hearing final arguments from both parties in May, the court reserved judgment before delivering its decision on Wednesday, granting the EFCC’s application for the final forfeiture of the affected properties.