The Federal High Court in Abuja has adjourned judgment in the forfeiture suit filed by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission against 57 properties linked to former Attorney-General of the Federation and Minister of Justice, Abubakar Malami.
The judgment, earlier scheduled for Friday, could not be delivered because Justice Joyce Abdulmalik did not sit.
The matter has now been fixed for July 15.
The EFCC is seeking the final forfeiture of the properties, which it claims are reasonably suspected to be proceeds of unlawful activities.
The case had earlier been set down for judgment after lawyers representing the parties adopted their written processes and addressed the court on the disputed forfeiture application.
Counsel to the EFCC, Jibrin Okutepa, SAN, had urged the court to grant the anti-graft agency’s request for permanent forfeiture of the properties to the Federal Government.
Okutepa told the court that the application, filed in February, was supported by a 47-paragraph affidavit and 46 exhibits.
He said the motion was contained in three volumes and argued that Malami and the other respondents had failed to show sufficient cause why the properties should not be permanently forfeited.
According to the EFCC lawyer, the respondents did not establish that the assets were acquired through legitimate means.
He therefore asked the court to make a final order transferring the properties to the Federal Government.
However, counsel to Malami and the other respondents, Adedayo Adedeji, SAN, opposed the application.
Adedeji said the respondents had filed a counter-affidavit to show why the final forfeiture order should not be granted.
He explained that the application, filed on February 27, was supported by a 109-paragraph affidavit personally deposed to by Malami.
The senior lawyer urged the court to set aside the earlier interim forfeiture order.
He argued that the respondents had shown that the properties were not acquired from proceeds of crime.
Adedeji maintained that the EFCC’s case was based mainly on suspicion rather than proven evidence.
He told the court that judicial decisions must be based on evidence and not speculation.
The defence also argued that the EFCC relied on materials described as extra-judicial evidence, which ordinarily ought to be tested through cross-examination in criminal proceedings.
Adedeji submitted that the court could not properly resolve the matter without oral evidence, which he said had earlier been refused.
He further stated that some of the properties were acquired before Malami became a public officer.
According to him, those properties could not be classified as proceeds of crime.
Adedeji also moved separate counter-affidavits and further affidavits on behalf of other respondents and companies listed in the matter.
He urged the court to dismiss the EFCC’s request for final forfeiture.
The court is expected to deliver judgment on July 15.
