The Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) has moved to permanently seize 57 properties linked to former Attorney General of the Federation Abubakar Malami (SAN), arguing that no valid challenge was presented against an earlier interim forfeiture order. In a court filing at the Federal High Court in Abuja, the EFCC cited the case number FHC/ABJ/CS/20/2026 and named Malami, his wife Hajia Bashir Asabe, his son Abdulaziz, and several corporate entities including Amasdul Oil and Gas Ltd, Rayhaan University Ltd/GTE, and Meethaq Hotels Ltd as respondents. The commission stated that under Section 17 of the Advance Fee Fraud and Other Fraud-Related Offences Act, 2006, it has the authority to pursue non-conviction-based asset forfeiture where properties are reasonably suspected to be proceeds of illegal activity. The interim forfeiture order, published in a national newspaper on January 9, has not been successfully contested, the EFCC claimed, adding that no sufficient cause was shown to prevent final forfeiture. According to a supporting affidavit, the EFCC received multiple petitions alleging corruption, abuse of office, and fraud against Malami, prompting investigations that included bank record reviews, responses from the CAC, FIRS, CCB, AGIS, and land registries in Kebbi, Sokoto, Kano, and the FCT, as well as site visits and asset valuations. Individuals connected to the case were also interviewed. The court, presided over by Justice Abdulmalik, has set April 21 for the hearing on the final forfeiture motion.
When the EFCC says no sufficient cause was shown to overturn the interim forfeiture, it means the legal threshold for retaining these properties has not been met by Malami or his associates — and that shifts the burden squarely onto them to prove legitimacy. The scale of investigative touchpoints — from CBN to state land registries — suggests a coordinated web of scrutiny few high-profile figures can withstand. This case is not just about property counts; it signals that non-conviction forfeiture may become a go-to tool for the EFCC, even against powerful ex-officials. If upheld, it could redefine how accountability is enforced without a criminal conviction.
