The Federal High Court in Abuja on Tuesday fixed 6 July for judgement in the forfeiture case involving 57 properties linked to former Attorney General of the Federation, Abubakar Malami, his family members and associates.
Judge Joyce Abdulmalik fixed the date after lawyers representing the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC), Mr Malami, companies and other individuals adopted their final processes in the matter.
|
|
The EFCC sought an order of final forfeiture of the properties to the federal government. The commission alleged that the assets were acquired with proceeds of unlawful activities.
During Tuesday’s proceedings, prosecution lawyer Jibrin Okutepa, a Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN), moved a motion for final forfeiture filed in February.
|
|
|
|---|
The application sought the final forfeiture of 57 properties and was supported by a 47 paragraph affidavit with 46 exhibits.
Mr Okutepa told the court that the motion was contained in “three volumes” and urged the court to grant the final forfeiture order “as prayed.”
Lawyer to the respondents, Adedayo Adedeji, also SAN moved an application filed on 27 February and supported by a 109 paragraph affidavit deposed to by Mr Malami himself.
Stay Ahead with Premium Times
Follow us on Google News and never miss breaking stories, investigations, and in-depth reporting.
Add as a preferred source on Google
Mr Adedeji said the affidavit was filed to “show cause” why the interim forfeiture order should not be made final. He said the application had three exhibits attached, alongside a written address in support.
Adopting the processes, the respondents’ lawyer urged the court not only to set aside the earlier interim order, but also to hold that the respondents had demonstrated that the properties “were not acquired from proceeds of crime” and therefore should not be subjected to interim or final forfeiture to the federal government.
Responding, Mr Okutepa, said his application backed by a 77-paragraph counter-affidavit filed on 5 May and supported by 80 exhibits marked EFCC A to EFCC E.
Relying on the processes, he urged the court to hold that Mr Malami and other respondents had “woefully failed to show cause” that the properties “were acquired legitimately, “ and asked the court to order the forfeiture of the properties to the Federal Government.
Reacting, Mr Adedeji argued that the counter-affidavit was “incompetent” and “unknown to law.”
Mr Adedeji recalled that the court, in January, directed the respondents to “show cause” why the interim forfeiture order should not be made final. He argued that the prosecution could not file another application based on the same order.
He urged the court to “discountenance” the counter affidavit.
The respondents’ lawyer also argued that the EFCC merely relied on “suspicion” to allege that the properties were acquired with proceeds of crime. “The court deals with evidence, not suspicion,” he said.
Mr Adedeji further argued that the prosecution relied on “extra judicial evidence” ordinarily meant for cross examination during criminal trial proceedings as evidence in the current case.
He said there was no way the court could properly determine the matter without oral evidence, which the court had earlier refused.
He maintained that the properties, including some acquired before Mr Malami assumed office, “were not proceeds of crime.”
The respondents’ lawyer also moved many more other separate counter affidavits and further affidavits on behalf of other respondents and companies listed in the matter and urged the court to refuse the forfeiture request. All aimed at showing that the properties were “legitimately acquired.”
Lawyers representing other individuals and companies seeking to show cause also urged the court to dismiss the final forfeiture application “in the interest of justice,” while the prosecution asked the court to dismiss their counter affidavits.
After all parties adopted their processes, the judge adjourned the matter until 6 July for ruling and judgment.
Backstory
PREMIUM TIMES reported that up to 57 assets seized from Mr Malami, valued at N212.8 billion by the EFCC, are currently under an interim forfeiture order of the Federal High Court in Abuja.
In early January, the court issued the interim forfeiture order over the 57 properties after the prosecution told Judge Emeka Nwite, who handled the case as at the time as a vacation judge, that the assets were proceeds of unlawful activities.
The multi-billion naira properties, largely luxury residential and commercial assets, are located in Abuja, Kebbi, Kano and Kaduna states.
But Mr Malami insists he acquired the assets legitimately. The case was later transferred to Judge Abdulmalik after the court vacation ended.
On 21 April, the prosecution told Judge Abdumalik that the lead lawyer for the respondents had an engagement at the Court of Appeal.
Responding, the judge emphasised the need for strict compliance with court directives. She noted that the interim forfeiture order had been published with a 14 day notice to allow interested parties show cause.
She subsequently ordered all parties and interested persons to file and serve their processes on or before 27 April.
The judge also warned lawyers against conduct aimed at delaying proceedings and fixed today , Tuesday 26 May for definite hearing.
Hours-long hearing
Tuesday’s hearing began with the respondents listing more than 12 respondents in the matter, including Mr Malami, his son and his wife, who are also facing money laundering charges.
The respondents also included companies which the prosecution alleged Mr Malami used to launder money while in office.
Lawyers representing other individuals seeking to show cause also announced appearances in relation to properties 10, 20, 8, 50, 40 and 46 among the 57 properties.
Mr Ayodeji then told the court that several applications had been filed, including a motion on notice seeking a mandatory injunction. He argued that the application should form the starting point of the proceedings.
While he was still explaining his position, Mr Okutepa drew the court’s attention to the earlier order made by the judge on 21 April. He said the court had ruled that any application filed after 27 April would not be heard.
Responding, Judge Abdulmalik held that the court would not entertain any process filed outside its earlier order. “When I make a ruling, my ruling stands. Any process filed after 27 April will be discountance,” the judge said.
Mr Okutepa then listed the prosecution’s applications for hearing and confirmed readiness to proceed. He however raised concerns over what he described as a potential procedural trap, arguing that the respondents might later claim they were denied fair hearing, and urged the court to conditioner all already filed applications.
Following the prosecution’s comment, the judge directed parties to begin adopting their processes. She also ruled that no fresh applications would be entertained after today.
The parties then moved and adopted several processes, including motions for extension of time, which the court granted on several occasions as the prosecution did not oppose them
The judge had earlier directed that each motion would be moved and followed by responses from the opposing side.
The court spent several hours between about 11 a.m. and 5 p.m., as the parties moved dozens of applications one after another.
READ ALSO: 2027: Ex-AGF Malami nominated Kebbi ADC governorship candidate
In one motion, the respondents sought to vacate and set aside the interim order granted by Judge Nwite in January.
The application also asked the court to strike out the suit, describing it as an abuse of court process.
However, the prosecution moved a 16-paragraph counter-affidavit filed on 17 February and urged the court to dismiss the application in the interest of justice.
In response, the respondents asked the court to set aside the criminal proceedings against the defendants in relation to the affected properties.
Mr Adedeji also moved an application “seeking leave to adduce oral evidence.”
He argued that giving oral evidence would allow the respondents to properly challenge the documents relied on by the prosecution.
Ruling on the application, the judge held that granting oral evidence would alter the nature of the proceedings because the matter was commenced by ex parte motion. “To grant this application will amount to an abuse of court process” and “the coloration of the proceedings,” the judge said.
Lawyers representing several other individuals and companies also moved several motions for extension of time, notice regularisation, and counter affidavits to show cause why the interim orders should not be upheld.
Discover more from Premium Times Nigeria
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
More News
