<p><!-- BEGIN THEIA POST SLIDER --></p>
<!-- WP QUADS Content Ad Plugin v. 3.0.4 -->
<div class="quads-location quads-ad4" id="quads-ad4" style="float:none;margin:0px;">

</div>

<p> ;</p><div class="KlFvpmOi" style="clear:both;float:left;width:100%;margin:0 0 20px 0;"><script async src="https://pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/js/adsbygoogle.js"></script>

<!-- TV -->

<ins class="adsbygoogle"

 style="display:block"

 data-ad-client="ca-pub-4403533287178375"

 data-ad-slot="4399361195"

 data-ad-format="auto"

 data-full-width-responsive="true"></ins>

<script>

 (adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});

</script></div>
<p>By Yusuf Danjuma Yunusa</p><div class="Y5DHpkCc" style="clear:both;float:left;width:100%;margin:0 0 20px 0;"><script async src="https://pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/js/adsbygoogle.js"></script>

<!-- TV -->

<ins class="adsbygoogle"

 style="display:block"

 data-ad-client="ca-pub-4403533287178375"

 data-ad-slot="4399361195"

 data-ad-format="auto"

 data-full-width-responsive="true"></ins>

<script>

 (adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});

</script></div>
<p>The Federal High Court in Abuja on Wednesday ordered the final forfeiture of 48 properties, including a university, linked to Mr Abubakar Malami, former Attorney-General of the Federation, AGF, to the Federal Government.</p>
<p>Justice Joyce Abdulmalik, in a ruling, held that the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission’s, EFCC, had been able to prove that the properties were reasonably suspected to be proceeds of unlawful activities.</p>
<p>Justice Abdulmalik held that Malami had failed to show that the properties were acquired through lawful sources.</p><div class="TTBTB1fu" style="clear:both;float:left;width:100%;margin:0 0 20px 0;"><script async src="https://pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/js/adsbygoogle.js"></script>

<ins class="adsbygoogle"

 style="display:block; text-align:center;"

 data-ad-layout="in-article"

 data-ad-format="fluid"

 data-ad-client="ca-pub-4403533287178375"

 data-ad-slot="6550225277"></ins>

<script>

 (adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});

</script></div>
<p>Earlier, the judge dismissed several applications, motions on notice and applications to show cause filed by Mr Malami, his family members and some companies linked to the properties, describing them as “wanting in merit.”</p>
<!-- WP QUADS Content Ad Plugin v. 3.0.4 -->
<div class="quads-location quads-ad1" id="quads-ad1" style="float:none;margin:0px;">

</div>

<!-- WP QUADS Content Ad Plugin v. 3.0.4 -->
<div class="quads-location quads-ad5" id="quads-ad5" style="float:none;margin:0px;">

</div>

<p>She held that the issue before the court was not “who owns the properties, but how legitimate are the funds used to acquire the properties.”</p>
<p>According to the judge, the respondents had “not dislodged the reasonable suspicion that the properties were acquired by unlawful activities.”</p>
<p>Justice Abdulmalik relied on Section 17 of the Advance Fee Fraud and Other Fraud Related Offences Act in granting the final forfeiture order.</p>
<p>The judge, however, vacated the interim forfeiture order in respect of nine other properties sought to be forfeited by the EFCC.</p>
<p>She held that the anti-graft agency was unable to prove that the nine properties located in Kebbi and Kaduna State were gotten through unlawful activities.</p>
<p>Justice Abdulmalik had fixed today for judgment in the forfeiture suit filed by the EFCC against 57 properties linked to Malami.</p>
<p>The anti-graft agency had, in the suit, sought the final forfeiture of the properties for reasonably suspected to be proceeds of unlawful activities.</p>
<p>Justice Emeka Nwite had, on Jan. 16, made an order for interim forfeiture of the 57 properties after Ekele Iheanacho, SAN, moved the motion ex-parte.</p>
<p>The EFCC instituted the suit, seeking the permanent forfeiture of the 57 properties worth N212.8 billion.</p>
<p>Following the publication of the interim order, Malami, his wife Nana Hadiza, his son, Abdulaziz, and several companies linked to the properties filed objections.</p>
<p>They urged the court to dismiss the EFCC’s application and set aside the interim forfeiture order, arguing that it was wrongly granted.</p>
<p>They also argued that the properties were lawfully acquired and that the EFCC failed to establish any connection between the assets and any unlawful activity.</p>
<p><!-- END THEIA POST SLIDER -->
<!-- WP QUADS Content Ad Plugin v. 3.0.4 -->
<div class="quads-location quads-ad3" id="quads-ad3" style="float:none;margin:0px;">

</div>
</p>
<script async src="https://pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/js/adsbygoogle.js"></script>

<ins class="adsbygoogle"

 style="display:block"

 data-ad-format="autorelaxed"

 data-ad-client="ca-pub-4403533287178375"

 data-ad-slot="1004305389"></ins>

<script>

 (adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});

</script>
<!-- WP QUADS Content Ad Plugin v. 3.0.4 -->
<div class="quads-location quads-ad4" id="quads-ad4" style="float:none;margin:0px;">

</div>


