Appeal Court Reserves Ruling on Malami’s Bid to Challenge EFCC’s Forfeiture of 57 Properties

The Court of Appeal in Abuja on Thursday reserved ruling in an application filed by former Attorney-General of the Federation, Abubakar Malami, seeking permission to appeal a Federal High Court ruling concerning the forfeiture of properties linked to him.

A three-member panel of the appellate court, led by Justice Abba Mohammed, said a date for the ruling would be communicated to all parties later.

Malami, through his lawyer, Joseph Daudu (SAN), is challenging a ruling delivered by Justice Joyce Abdulmalik in proceedings involving the forfeiture of 57 properties allegedly connected to unlawful activities.

Earlier this year, the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission secured an interim forfeiture order against the properties.

While arguing the application, Daudu told the appellate court that the motion sought an extension of time to apply for leave to appeal, leave to appeal the ruling itself, and an extension of time to file the appeal.

He explained that the delay in filing the appeal was mainly due to the time taken to obtain the certified true copy of the lower court’s ruling.

According to him, the application was supported by a four-paragraph affidavit alongside copies of the ruling being challenged.

Daudu urged the court to grant the application, insisting that the delay was procedural and not caused by negligence on the part of the applicant.

“The rules of court now require that the ruling sought to be appealed against must be attached to an interlocutory appeal,” he argued.

He added that filing an application without attaching the ruling would render the process incompetent.

The senior advocate also faulted the EFCC’s reliance on the Court of Appeal’s fast-track practice direction for corruption and financial crime cases, arguing that the issue was not raised in the commission’s counter-affidavit and could not be introduced during oral submissions.

Daudu further maintained that interlocutory appeals remain lawful, especially where questions of jurisdiction are involved.

Counsel to the EFCC, Jibrin Okutepa (SAN), however, opposed the application and asked the court to dismiss it.

Okutepa argued that the matter clearly falls under the fast-track practice direction applicable to corruption and financial crime cases.

According to him, the disputed properties were allegedly acquired fraudulently while Malami served as Attorney-General of the Federation.

“This has to do with property fraudulently acquired while Malami was AGF,” Okutepa submitted.

He argued that interlocutory appeals in such matters are discouraged because the issues raised could be addressed during the final hearing of the substantive case.

Okutepa also insisted that Malami failed to provide sufficient reasons for not filing the appeal within the required timeframe.

The senior lawyer further referred to the reassignment of the case at the Federal High Court.

He explained that the initial ex parte application by the EFCC was heard by Justice Emeka Nwite, while the ruling being challenged was later delivered by Justice Abdulmalik after the matter was reassigned.

According to him, Malami had argued that the proceedings should begin afresh because the earlier ex parte order granted by Justice Nwite had already lapsed.

Okutepa urged the appellate court to reject the application and allow the substantive forfeiture proceedings to continue without delay.

After hearing arguments from both parties, the appellate court reserved ruling.

The case stems from an order issued by Justice Nwite on January 6, directing the interim forfeiture of 57 properties suspected to be proceeds of unlawful activities following an ex parte application by the EFCC.

The court also ordered the anti-graft agency to publish the interim forfeiture order in a national newspaper, giving interested parties 14 days to show cause why the properties should not be permanently forfeited to the Federal Government.

Following the court’s vacation, the matter was reassigned to Justice Obiora Egwuatu, who later withdrew from the case, citing personal reasons and the interest of justice, after which the matter was reassigned to Justice Abdulmalik.