By Suleiman Anyalewechi
A new twist has emerged in the interim forfeiture order granted to the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission, EFCC, in respect of 57 properties said to be linked to a former Attorney General and Minister of Justice Abubakar Malami, his wife and son. Fresh applicants have asked the court to nullify the order.
The Source reports that Honourable Justice Emeka Nwite, a vacation Judge, had, on January 6, 2026, issued an interim order for the said properties to be forfeited to the Federal Government of Nigeria.
He, also, directed that the interim order of forfeiture be published in a national newspaper requesting interested persons to within 14 days of the said publication show cause why the said properties should not be permanently forfeited to the Federal Government of Nigeria.
The order was sequel to a motion ex-parte filed by the anti-graft Commission seeking the forfeiture of the said properties on the grounds that they are reasonably suspected to be proceeds of unlawful activities.
According to the EFCC, the choice properties which are estimated at about N213 billion are scattered across three states of Kano, Kaduna , Kebbi and the Federal Capital Territory FCT
The embattled former Justice Minister, Malami, had, on Monday, January 2, 2026, after the case file was transfered to a new Judge, Honourable Justice Obiora Egwuatu of the Federal High Court, Abuja, prayed the court to vacate the interim forfeiture order on properties listed as Nos 9, 18 and 48 in the schedule attached to the interim order.
According to him, properties 9 and 18 had earlier been duly declared in his asset declaration forms during his tenure as a public officer, while property number 48 is held in trust for the Estate of his late father Khadi Malami Nasarawa.
Specifically, Malami, in his application filed by his counsel Joseph Daudu, SAN, argued that the three assets as listed in the schedule of the 57 Properties are not linked to any prima facie evidence of unlawful activities, having been declared in his asset declaration forms filed with the Code of Conduct Bureau CCB in 2019 and 2023.
Consequently, he sought the order of the honourable court” restraining the EFCC’ acting by itself or through its servants, agents and proxies from interfering with the respondents/ applicant (Malami) properties in issue or disturbing the respondent/applicant’s ownership, possession and control thereof in the course of purportedly giving effect to the order of this Honourable Court made on 6th of January 2026.”
The fresh and additional applicants Muktaka Usman Junju and Rayhaan Bustan, and Agro Allied LTD, in motions filed by their counsels are praying the court to set aside, and discharge the interim forfeiture order as earlier granted by the court on January 6, 2026, on the grounds that the EFCC failed and or neglected to establish any nexus between their properties listed as Nos 1,28 ,29 ,30,31, and 32 in the schedule of properties attached to the forfeiture order and any unlawful activities.
The applicants contended that the anti-graft Commission did not comply with all the statutory and constitutional requirements governing interim forfeiture proceedings, particularly, as they relate to the Evidence Act, and the Advance Fee Fraud, and Other Fraud Related Offences Act.
In his separate application filed by his counsel, Daudu SAN , Rayhaan Bustan and Agro Allied LTD asked the court to delist properties listed as Nos 1,28,29, 30,31,and 32 , from the schedule of properties attached to the forfeiture order , accusing the EFCC of deliberately hiding relevant facts in the process of obtaining the forfeiture order.
Similarly, Muktaka Usman Junju in his own application filed by his counsel, Kalu Kalu Agu, also prayed the court to nullify and discharge the interim forfeiture order on the property listed as No 40 ,in the schedule attached to the interim forfeiture order by the EFCC.
The said property, Al-Afiya Energy Tanker Garage located on Sani Abacha Bypass, Birni-Kebbi, is worth about N2.45 billion.
The two applicants separately and collectively argued that the properties belong to them, insisting they were wrongly listed in the schedule attached to the forfeiture order by the anti-graft agency.
Similarly, both parties argued that the EFCC, in its application for forfeiture, failure to disclose the specific unlawful activities allegedly committed in the process of acquiring the said properties as required by extant laws.
The matter has been scheduled for hearing on February 12, 2026, by the new Judge, Honourable Justice Egwuatu.
Discover more from The Source
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
