The Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) has approached the Federal High Court in Abuja seeking a final forfeiture order on 57 properties allegedly linked to former Attorney-General of the Federation, Abubakar Malami.

In its application before Justice Joyce Abdulmalik, the EFCC argued that the affected individuals and entities failed to provide sufficient justification to overturn an earlier interim forfeiture order granted by the court.

The anti-graft agency, represented by senior lawyers including Jibrin Okutepa and Ekele Iheanacho, maintained that the properties are reasonably suspected to be proceeds of unlawful activities. It is therefore asking the court to permanently transfer ownership of the assets to the Federal Government of Nigeria under provisions of the Advance Fee Fraud and Related Offences Act, 2006.

Those listed as respondents in the suit include Malami, his family members, and several companies allegedly linked to him. These entities are believed to have been used as fronts to acquire assets across Abuja, Kebbi, Kano, and Kaduna States.

According to an affidavit filed by EFCC investigator Daniel Adebayo, the commission received multiple petitions accusing the former minister of corruption, abuse of office, and financial misconduct. Investigations reportedly involved reviewing bank records, asset declarations, and conducting interviews.

The EFCC claimed that Malami’s declared earnings during his tenure between 2015 and 2023—comprising salaries, allowances, and official travel estacodes—were significantly lower than the value of the properties in question, raising suspicion about the source of funds used for their acquisition.

It also alleged that some of the properties lacked proper building approvals and were acquired through proxies or corporate entities to conceal ownership.

The court had earlier granted an interim forfeiture order in January 2026, directing the EFCC to publish the notice and invite interested parties to show cause why the assets should not be permanently forfeited. The commission stated that no convincing objections have been presented since then.

Meanwhile, Malami and other respondents have challenged the forfeiture proceedings, asking the court to set aside the interim order.

The case, which has undergone reassignment between judges, is now set for hearing on April 21, where the court will decide whether to grant the final forfeiture request.