Judgment Marks Major Milestone in Nigeria’s Anti-Corruption Campaign as Legal Debate Over Asset Recovery Continues
Judiciary Correspondent, Abuja
Grow your business with us
ABUJA — Nigeria’s anti-corruption campaign recorded another significant judicial milestone after the Federal High Court in Abuja ordered the final forfeiture of 48 properties linked to former Attorney-General of the Federation and Minister of Justice, Abubakar Malami, to the Federal Government.
In a judgment delivered by Justice Joyce Abdulmalik, the court held that the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) established sufficient legal grounds that the properties were reasonably suspected to have been acquired through unlawful activities. The court further ruled that Malami, members of his family and companies connected to the assets failed to satisfactorily rebut the allegations before the court.
The ruling follows months of legal proceedings that began after the EFCC secured an interim forfeiture order covering dozens of properties reportedly valued at over ₦213 billion and spread across Abuja, Kano, Kaduna, Kebbi and other locations. During the proceedings, Malami consistently maintained that his assets were lawfully acquired and properly declared during his years in public office.
The judgment is being viewed as one of the most significant civil asset forfeiture cases involving a former senior public official since the current administration intensified efforts to recover allegedly illicit assets.
Legal experts note that civil forfeiture differs from criminal conviction. Under Nigerian law, courts may order the forfeiture of assets shown, on the balance of probabilities, to be proceeds of unlawful activities even where criminal proceedings are separate.
Anti-corruption advocates argue that recovering suspected illicit assets is essential for rebuilding public confidence in governance, while legal rights groups stress that due process and fair hearing must remain central to every forfeiture proceeding.
Political analysts believe the decision will further stimulate debate about transparency, asset declaration and accountability among present and former public office holders.
Observers expect the matter to proceed to higher appellate courts should the affected parties challenge the judgment.