Applicants Ask Court to Vacate EFCC Forfeiture Order on Properties Linked to Malami

By Correspondent in Abuja.
Two applicants have approached the Federal High Court in Abuja, seeking to set aside the interim forfeiture order placed on some properties allegedly linked to former Attorney-General of the Federation (AGF) and Minister of Justice, Mr Abubakar Malami, SAN.

The applicants contended that the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) failed to establish any nexus between their properties and proceeds of unlawful activities, contrary to Section 135 of the Evidence Act and provisions of the Advance Fee Fraud and Other Fraud Related Offences Act.

Those seeking relief are Alhaji Muktaka Usman Junju and Rayhaan Bustan and Agro Allied Ltd, who filed separate motions on notice through their respective counsel, urging the court to vacate and discharge the interim forfeiture order granted on January 6 by Justice Emeka Nwite.

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

Similarly, Rayhaan Bustan and Agro Allied Ltd, through their counsel, Mr Joseph Daudu, SAN, urged the court to remove properties listed as Nos. 1, 28, 29, 30, 31 and 32 from the forfeiture schedule.

Both applicants also prayed the court to order the immediate restoration of their possession, control and enjoyment of the affected properties, which form part of the 57 assets sought to be forfeited to the Federal Government.

According to our correspondent,property No. 40 is the Al-Afiya Energy Tanker Garage, located opposite Rayhaan University Health Centre along Sani Abacha Bypass Road, Birnin Kebbi, and valued at ₦2.45 billion.

Property No. 1 is a luxury duplex located at Amazon Street, Plot 3011, Cadastral Zone A06, Maitama, Abuja, reportedly purchased in December 2022 for ₦500 million, with its value after enhancement placed at ₦5.95 billion.

Properties listed as Nos. 28, 29, 30, 31 and 32, under the Rayhaan Agro Allied Factory in Kebbi State, include factory buildings, machines and plant units, a factory mosque, staff quarters and the Rayhaan Bustan building.

Their respective values are put at ₦4.2 billion, ₦10.5 billion, ₦2.45 billion, ₦1.487 billion and ₦3.15 billion.

Justice Nwite had, on January 6, ordered the interim forfeiture of 57 properties suspected to be proceeds of unlawful activities allegedly linked to Malami.

The assets, valued at several billions of naira, are located in Abuja, Kebbi, Kano and Kaduna states.

The order followed an ex parte motion moved by EFCC counsel, Mr Ekele Iheanacho, SAN.

The judge also directed the publication of the forfeiture order in a national newspaper, inviting interested persons to show cause within 14 days why a final forfeiture order should not be made.

Although the matter was initially before Justice Nwite, the case file was later transferred by the Chief Judge of the Federal High Court to Justice Obiora Egwuatu for adjudication.

In his motion dated January 26 and filed January 28, marked FHC/ABJ/CS/20/2026, Junju claimed ownership of property No. 40, stating that its root of title and acquisition history were clearly outlined in documents attached as Exhibit A.

His counsel argued that EFCC failed to establish that the property was proceeds of unlawful activity, thereby depriving the court of jurisdiction.

Agu further contended that the commission did not comply with Section 44(2)(b) of the 1999 Constitution (as amended) and Section 17(1) of the Advance Fee Fraud Act, which require disclosure of specific particulars of the alleged unlawful act and applicable laws.

He also faulted the ex parte proceedings, arguing that the court did not conduct a global review of the documents and exhibits attached to the EFCC’s application, amounting to an abdication of judicial duty.

Agu maintained that Junju lawfully purchased the land from the original allottee, Alhaji Usman Na’Allah Bunza, and had no connection with Malami or any Al-Afiya Garage.

He further alleged that EFCC was guilty of fraud and non-disclosure of material facts, noting that the interim forfeiture was procured in violation of the Assets Tracing, Recovery and Management Regulations 2019, as it was not initiated through the Office of the Attorney-General of the Federation.

In a similar vein, Daudu argued that Rayhaan Bustan and Agro Allied Ltd is a duly registered corporate entity under the Companies and Allied Matters Act (CAMA) and is legally entitled to own property anywhere in Nigeria.

He stated that the affected properties belonged to the company, with their acquisition history detailed in documents attached as Exhibit BUSTAN.

The legal practitioner added that property No. 1 was acquired with funds paid by Excel Merchants Ltd, adding that properties Nos. 28 to 32 were financed through loans obtained from NEXIM Bank, the Bank of Industry and Access Bank Plc.

Daudu further disclosed that the NEXIM Bank loan had been recalled following the interim forfeiture order, while Zenith Bank Plc, which guaranteed the facility, had revoked its guarantee and commenced daily interest charges on the outstanding sum.

He argued that the EFCC failed to establish that the properties were proceeds of unlawful activities or linked to any predicate offence, as required by law.

Daudu also aligned with Junju’s counsel in alleging fraud and non-disclosure of material facts by the commission.

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

Malami has also filed a separate motion seeking to vacate the interim forfeiture order on properties linked to him.

Justice Egwuatu has fixed February 12 for hearing of the matter.
Edited by Dada Ahmed.