From Victor Osula, Abuja
The Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) and former Attorney-General of the Federation (AGF) and Minister of Justice, Abubakar Malami, SAN, will on July 10 know the fate of 57 properties at the centre of a high-profile asset forfeiture suit after the Federal High Court in Abuja adjourned judgment in the matter.
Justice Joyce Abdulmalik had earlier slated Monday for the delivery of judgment after parties adopted their final written addresses. However, when the matter came up, the court postponed the judgment until July 10.
While no reason was given for the adjournment, the case, listed as number four on Monday’s cause list, was among four matters that were assigned fresh dates out of the 13 cases scheduled before the court.
The EFCC is seeking a final order forfeiting the 57 properties to the Federal Government, contending that they are reasonably suspected to be proceeds of unlawful activities.
At the proceedings leading to the judgment date, counsel to the anti-graft agency, Jibrin Okutepa, SAN, urged the court to grant the commission’s application, which was filed in February and supported by a 47-paragraph affidavit and 46 documentary exhibits contained in three volumes.
Okutepa argued that the respondents had failed to satisfactorily explain the legitimate sources of funds used to acquire the properties, insisting they had “woefully failed to show cause” why the assets should not be permanently forfeited.
He urged the court to grant the final forfeiture order, maintaining that the commission had established sufficient grounds to believe the properties were proceeds of unlawful activities.
However, counsel to Malami and the other respondents, Adedayo Adedeji, SAN, asked the court to dismiss the EFCC’s application and vacate the earlier interim forfeiture order.
Adedeji informed the court that Malami personally deposed to a 109-paragraph affidavit filed in opposition to the commission’s application, insisting that the respondents had demonstrated that the properties were lawfully acquired and not proceeds of crime.
He argued that the EFCC’s case was based largely on suspicion rather than admissible evidence.
“The court deals with evidence, not suspicion,” the senior advocate submitted, urging the court to reject the commission’s claims.
Adedeji further contended that the EFCC relied on extra-judicial statements ordinarily meant to be tested through cross-examination during criminal proceedings, arguing that such materials could not properly determine the issues before the court in a civil forfeiture case.
He also maintained that several of the disputed properties had been acquired before Malami assumed office as Attorney-General of the Federation and therefore could not reasonably be linked to alleged proceeds of crime.
In addition, Adedeji filed separate counter-affidavits and further affidavits on behalf of other respondents and companies joined in the suit, all opposing the application for final forfeiture.
Lawyers representing the other individuals and corporate entities equally urged the court to dismiss the EFCC’s application, insisting that their clients had sufficiently accounted for the ownership and lawful acquisition of the assets.
