More applicants ask court to dismiss EFCC’s forfeiture request on property linked to Malami

More applicants have approached the Federal High Court in Abuja, praying for the setting aside of the interim forfeiture order made against some of the property linked to Mr Abubakar Malami, SAN, former Attorney-General of Federation (AGF) and Minister of Justice.

The applicants argued that the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) failed to establish any nexus between their property and any unlawful activity, contrary to Section 135 of the Evidence Act and the Advance Fee Fraud.

The applicants; Alhaji Muktaka Usman Junju, and Rayhaan Bustan and Agro Allied Ltd, in their separate motions on notice filed by their lawyers, urged the court to vacate and discharge the order made on Jan. 6 by Justice Emeka Nwite.

Junju, a businessman, through his lawyer, Kalu Kalu Agu, urged the court to set aside the order made on property listed as No. 40 by the EFCC.

On its part, Rayhaan Ltd, an agricultural food production company, through its lawyer, Joseph Daudu, SAN, also asked the court to remove property listed as Nos. 1, 28, 29, 30, 31 and 32 from the list of property brought by the anti-graft agency.

The duo, in their applications, equally prayed the court for an order directing the immediate restoration of their possession, control, and enjoyment of the listed property from the 57 property sought to be forfeited to the Federal Government.

Our correspndent recalls that the property listed as No. 40 in the EFCC’s schedule is Al-Afiya Energy Tanker Garage, opposite Rayhaan University Health Centre, along Sani Abacha Bypass Road, Birnin-Kebbi, valued at N2, 450, 000, 000.00.

Property No. 1 is a Luxury Duplex at Amazon Street, Plot No. 3011 Within Cadastral Zone, A06 Maitama; File No: AN enhancement 11352, which was purchased in December 2022 at N500,000, 000.00 (value after enhancement at N5,950, 000, 000).

Property Nos. 28, 29, 30, 31 and 32 which are under RAYHAAN AGRO ALLIED FACTORY IN KEBBI include Factory Buildings, Factory Machines and Plants Units, Factory Mosque, Rayhaan Mill Staff Quarters and Rayhaan Bustan Building, valued at N4, 200, 000, 000.00; N10, 500, 000, 000.00; N2, 450, 000, 000. 00; N1, 487, 500, 000.00; and N3, 150, 000, 000.00 respectively.

NAN reports that Justice Nwite had, on Jan. 6, ordered the interim forfeiture of the 57 property suspected to be proceeds of unlawful activities linked to Mr Malami.

The multi-billion naira landed property are located in Abuja, Kebbi, Kano and Kaduna States.

The judge granted the order following an ex-parte motion moved by the EFCC’s lawyer, Ekele Iheanacho, SAN, to the effect.

Malami was the AGF and Minister of Justice in the Muhammadu Buhari administration.

Nwite, in the ruling, also directed the publication of the interim order of forfeiture in any national daily inviting any person(s) or body (ies) who might have interest in the property to show cause, within 14 days of the publication, why a final order of forfeiture to the Federal Government of Nigeria should not be made.

Although the case was formerly before Justice Nwite, the case file had been transfered by the chief judge to Justice Obiora Egwuatu of a sister court for adjudication.

Meanwhile, Junju, in his motion on notice dated Jan. 26 but filed Jan. 28 by Agu marked: FHC/ABJ/CS/20/2026, stated that the property listed as No. 40 belonged to him.

According to Junju, the root of title and acquisition history are described in the schedule attached to the affidavit in support of the motion, as Exhibit A.

His lawyer argued that the commission had not established that the property is proceeds of unlawful purpose, which, he argued, robbed the court of jurisdiction.

Agu submitted that the EFCC had failed to comply with the constitutional and statutory dictates of Section 44(2) (b) of the 1999 Constitution (as amended) and Section 17(1) of the Advance Fee Fraud and Other Fraud Related Offences Act 2006, requiring it to disclose specific particulars of the alleged unlawful act committed and the applicable laws.

Besides, he said the court did not conduct a global review of the entire documents and exhibits attached to the commission’s motion ex-parte filed on Jan. 6 and granted the same date, “which constitutes an abdication of its judicial duty to properly consider the application to ensure there is a reasonable suspicion that the property was linked to unlawful activities.”

The lawyer argued that Junju duly purchased the land in question “from an original allottee, by name Alhaji Usman Na’Allah Bunza and has no link with Malami, SAN or any Al-Afiya Garage.”

“Respondent (EFCC) is quilty of fraud and non-disclosure of material facts regarding ownership and acquisition of property of the applicant (Junju) forfeited in the interim by the orders of this honourable court.

“The interim forfeiture was procured in violation of Section 5 of the Assets Tracing, Recovery and Management Regulations 2019, having not been initiated through the Office of the Attorney-General of the Federation,” Agu said.

Also in his argument, Daudu, in their motion dated Jan. 19 but filed Jan. 23, said Rayhaan Ltd, by law, is a corporate person and can acquire and own property anywhere in Nigeria.

He described Rayhaan as “a limited liability company, duly registered with the Corporate Affairs Commission (CAC) pursuant to the Companies and Allied Matters Act (CAMA).”

The senior lawyer said property listed as Nos. 1, 28, 29, 30, 31 and 32 all belonged to the company.

“Their root of title and acquisition history are described in the schedule attached to the affidavit in support of this motion as Exhibit BUSTAN.

“The applicant’s property No. 1 was acquired with payments made from Excel Merchants Ltd in favour of the applicant,” he said.

Daudu further said that property Nos. 28, 29, 30, 31, and 32 were acquired by the company from banking facilities granted by NEXIM BANK, the Bank of Industry and Access Bank Plc.

“The NEXIM Bank loan has now been called in by reason of the interim order of forfeiture of 6th January, 2026.

“Zenith Bank Plc, which had guaranteed the loan, has revoked the guarantee by reason of the interim order of forfeiture, of 6th January, 2026, and has commenced daily interest charges on the outstanding sum,” Daudu said.

The lawyer argued that the EFCC did not establish that the assets listed as Nos. 1, 28, 29, 30, 31, and 32, in the interim forfeiture order were proceeds of some unlawful activities, as required under Section 17 (1) of the Advance Fee Fraud Act 2006, and that no predicate offence was linked to the acquisition of the property.

He also argued that the court was not invoked and prompted to conduct a global review of the entire documents and exhibits attached to the motion ex-parte “which constitutes an abdication of its judicial duty to properly consider the application to ensure that there Is a reasonable suspicion that they were Inked to unlawful action.”

Daudu aligned with Agu that the EFCC “is guilty of fraud and non-disclosure of material facts regarding ownership and acquisition of properties of the applicant forfeited by the orders” of the court.

He submitted that the proceedings of Jan. 6 amounted to unlawful deprivation of property, denial of fair hearing and abuse of court process, urging the court to set same aside.

Malami had, equally, filed a motion, praying the court to vacate the interim order of forfeiture against his property.

Meanwhile, Justice Egwuatu has fixed Feb. 12 for hearing of the matter.