Former Attorney General of the Federation, Abubakar Malami, has taken legal action against the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) over the seizure of several properties allegedly linked to him, insisting that all assets in question were lawfully acquired.
The dispute, currently before the Federal High Court in Abuja, stems from an interim forfeiture order earlier secured by the EFCC, targeting multiple properties under investigation. The anti-graft agency had argued that the assets could be connected to proceeds of crime, prompting the court to grant a temporary forfeiture pending further proceedings.
However, in documents filed before the court and reviewed on Monday, Malami strongly refuted the allegations, maintaining that his wealth was built through legitimate means over several decades.
“My money is clean, my properties are legit,” Malami declared in his filings, as he challenged the legal basis of the EFCC’s actions.
The former minister argued that the commission failed to provide concrete evidence linking the seized properties to any form of illegal activity. According to him, there is no documentation before the court demonstrating that the assets were acquired through proceeds of crime.
“There is no document before the court showing these properties were acquired with proceeds of crime,” he stated.
Malami also accused the EFCC of presenting inflated valuations of the properties in question. He claimed that assets originally acquired for hundreds of millions of naira were misrepresented as being worth billions, thereby exaggerating the scale of the alleged financial misconduct.
He further noted that independent valuations of the properties indicate significantly lower and more realistic figures, challenging the credibility of the figures cited by the commission.
In his defence, Malami outlined multiple sources of income which he said accounted for his wealth. These include his long-standing legal career, spanning several decades, as well as business ventures and investments across sectors such as hospitality, agriculture, and education.
He also cited loans obtained from commercial banks, proceeds from asset sales, and other legitimate financial activities, including gifts and earnings from book launches, as part of his income portfolio.
“All my earnings were declared in line with legal requirements,” Malami said, adding that his financial disclosures were duly submitted to the Code of Conduct Bureau as mandated by law.
Beyond disputing the financial allegations, Malami raised concerns about the manner in which the EFCC carried out the seizure of the properties. He accused the commission of exceeding its legal authority by taking possession of some assets without a final court order.
According to him, the enforcement process involved actions that violated due process, including the alleged eviction of family members from certain residences and the seizure of personal documents.
He described these actions as “extrajudicial,” arguing that they undermined the rule of law and his constitutional rights.
The legal challenge is also linked to an ongoing criminal investigation involving the former minister, adding another layer of complexity to the case. Legal analysts say the outcome could have broader implications for how asset forfeiture laws are applied in Nigeria, particularly in balancing enforcement powers with due process protections.
Malami is seeking an order from the court to nullify the interim forfeiture directive, insisting that the properties should be returned to him as they are not connected to any criminal activity.
The EFCC, on its part, is expected to present evidence to substantiate its claims that the assets may be proceeds of unlawful conduct, as proceedings continue.
The court’s eventual ruling will determine whether the properties will be permanently forfeited to the Federal Government or restored to Malami, a decision that could set an important precedent for future cases involving asset seizure and financial crime investigations.
As the matter progresses, attention remains focused on the judiciary’s role in resolving disputes between public officials and anti-corruption agencies, as well as ensuring that the principles of justice and due process are upheld.
