The Federal High Court in Abuja has postponed judgment in the forfeiture suit filed by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) against 57 properties linked to former Attorney-General of the Federation, Abubakar Malami (SAN), until July 10.
Justice Joyce Abdulmalik had earlier fixed Monday for the delivery of judgment after counsel to the parties adopted their processes and presented arguments in the matter on May 26.
However, the case, which was listed as number four on the court’s cause list, did not proceed as scheduled.
No reason was given for the postponement. Three other matters on the court’s cause list were also assigned new dates.
The EFCC is seeking the final forfeiture of the properties, alleging that they are reasonably suspected to be proceeds of unlawful activities.
At the previous hearing, EFCC counsel, Jibrin Okutepa (SAN), told the court that the commission’s motion, filed in February, was supported by a 47-paragraph affidavit and 46 exhibits.
He urged the court to grant the application, arguing that Malami and other respondents had failed to show that the properties were lawfully acquired.
Okutepa asked the court to order the permanent forfeiture of the properties to the Federal Government.
In response, Malami’s counsel, Adedayo Adedeji (SAN), said the respondents had filed a 109-paragraph affidavit, deposed to by Malami, to show why the final forfeiture order should not be granted.
He urged the court to set aside the interim forfeiture order and hold that the respondents had demonstrated that the properties were not acquired through proceeds of crime.
Adedeji argued that the EFCC’s allegations were based on suspicion rather than evidence.
“The court deals with evidence, not suspicion,” he said.
He further contended that the anti-graft agency relied on extra-judicial statements that would ordinarily require cross-examination in a criminal trial.
According to him, the court could not properly determine the matter without oral evidence, which it had earlier declined to allow.
Adedeji maintained that the properties, including some acquired before Malami assumed office, were not proceeds of crime.
He also moved separate counter-affidavits and further affidavits on behalf of other respondents and companies involved in the case.
Other lawyers representing individuals and companies listed in the suit also urged the court to dismiss the EFCC’s application for final forfeiture.
Justice Abdulmalik subsequently adjourned the matter for judgment.
