A Federal High Court in Abuja has again rescheduled its planned judgment in the suit by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) for the final forfeiture of about 57 properties allegedly acquired unlawfully by a former Attorney General of the Federation (AGF), Abubakar Malami (SAN), to July 15.

Justice Joyce Abdulmalik had earlier fixed the judgment for July 6 after taking final arguments and submissions from lawyers for the parties in the case.

Although the case was listed on the court’s cause list on July 6, it was adjourned before the court began sitting for the day, as a new date of July 10 was written against it on the cause list, but no reason was provided.

On July 10, the case was further rescheduled to July 15 because the court would not sit, as the judge was unavailable.

The EFCC had, on January 6, secured an interim forfeiture order on the property, which it claimed is located in Abuja, Kebbi, Kano, and Kaduna states.

It consequently filed an application for final forfeiture, which Malami and others challenged, claiming, among other things, to have acquired the property legitimately.

Arguing on the EFCC’s position, its lawyer, Jibrin Okutepa (SAN), said his client’s motion for final forfeiture, filed in February, was supported by a 47-paragraph affidavit with 46 exhibits attached.

Okutepa noted that the motion was in three volumes and urged the court to grant the reliefs contained therein.

He also urged the court to hold that Malami and other respondents woefully failed to show cause that the property “was acquired legitimately.”

Okutepa urged the court to order the property’s final forfeiture to the Federal Government.

In his counterargument, lawyer to Malami, Adedayo Adedeji (SAN), referred to the application his client filed on February 27, supported by a 109-paragraph affidavit deposed to by the ex-AGF in person.

Adedeji noted that his client’s affidavit was filed to show cause why the final forfeiture order sought by the EFCC should not be granted.

He argued that the EFCC merely relied on suspicion to allege that the property was acquired with proceeds of crime, insisting that “the court deals with evidence, not suspicion.”

Adedeji, who urged the court to discountenance the submissions by the lawyer to the EFCC, argued that the agency relied on “extrajudicial evidence,” meant for cross-examination during trial in the criminal proceedings, as evidence in the current case.

He said there was no way the court could properly determine this case without oral evidence, which the court had earlier refused.

Adedeji added that the property, including those acquired before Malami became the AGF, was not from proceeds of crime.

Lawyers for others, claiming ownership of the property, including individuals and some companies, also urged the court to dismiss the application for final forfeiture filed by the EFCC.

They also prayed the court to set aside the earlier interim order and proceed to hold that the respondents have demonstrated that the property was not acquired from proceeds of crime.

Source: The Nation News