- Safiu Kehinde
On Friday 28th of November 2025, the former Attorney-General of the Federation and Minister of Justice, Abubakar Malami, made a post on his Facebook which marked the beginning of his ongoing trial before judiciary he once ministered over barely three six years ago. Malami disclosed being summoned by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) with the cause of the invitation not immediately revealed. He however expressed readiness to honour the invitation of the anti-graft agency. The ex-AGF acknowledged the tenets of accountability and transparency attached to public service as he vowed make outcome of the summon public.
With over eight months gone and several hearings passed, Malami now await court’s judgement on the fate of his 57 properties billed for forfeiture as requested by the EFCC over a case that started with an invitation.
A man of his word Malami had proved to be when he appeared at the EFCC’s head office in Abuja where he was detained. Two days after, reports emerged from the EFCC office with a source disclosing that Malami’s passport had been seized amid ongoing investigation over the whereabout of the alleged $490 million Abacha loot secured through a Mutual Legal Assistance (MLAT) request. Malami, had however, described the allegations as fabricated and said the truth would soon unfold. He said the engagement with the EFCC was successful and that he was released pending further meetings.
Things would go haywire for the former AGF on the night of December 10, 2025, as one of the further meetings led to his detention with the EFCC commencing probe over alleged money laundering, terrorism financing, and 16 other offences. Following his arrival at the EFCC’s office in Abuja, Malami was reportedly probed with sources privy to the investigation disclosing that Malami was unable to account for the recovery of $346.2 million Abacha loot from Switzerland and funds from the Island of Jersey.
Malami challenged the EFCC on the property listed as No. 9, No. 18 and No. 48 in the ex-parte motion it brought to the court on the 6th of January.
According to reports, the three properties, sought to be discharged, include Plot 157, Lamido Crescent, Nasarawa, GRA, Kano, purchased in July 31, 2019, with no specific amount stated in the schedule as No. 9.
They also include a Bedroom Duplex and Boys Quarters at No.12, Yalinga Street, Off Adetokunbo Ademola Crescent, Wuse Il, Abuja, purchased in October 2018 at N150 million, and ADC Kadi Malami Foundation Building, bought at N56 million listed as No. 18 and No. 48.
In a 14-ground argument, Malami’s counsel, Joseph Daudu (SAN) argued that the assets Nos. 9, 18, and 48, the subject of interim forfeiture, especially those declared in the various asset declaration forms of Malami are not linked by prima facie evidence of an unlawful activity or a specific offence.
He said Malami had declared the assets listed as Nos. 9, and 18 in his asset declaration forms filed with the Code of Conduct Bureau (CCB) in 2019 and 2023 respectively.
He said property No. 48 is held in trust by the former AGF for the benefit of the estate of his late father, Late Kadi Malami.
“These assets, their value and their root of title have been clearly stated and specifically demonstrated in the various asset declaration forms spanning from 2019 to 2023.
“The declaration above is prima facie evidence of the legitimacy of the acquisition and ownership of the properties,” Daudu said.
In a dramatic twist of event, the judge presiding over forfeiture suit, Justice Obiora Egwatu, withdrew from the case. The judge who was joined by two other respondents cited personal reasons as the cause of his withdrawal from the case.
“Ladies and gentlemen, for personal reasons, and for the better interest of justice, I will recuse myself from this case,” he said at the hearing of the case on February 12.
Egwatu directed that the file should be forwarded to the Chief Judge of the Federal High Court for reassignment to another judge.
The judge’s withdrawal from the case prompted EFCC to rearraign Malami, his son, and wife.
The defendants were re-arraigned before Justice Joyce Abdulmalik of the Federal High Court, Abuja, following the reassignment of the case to a new trial judge.
On the 24th of March, drama ensued at Malami’s Abuja residence after EFCC officials stormed the residence days after being granted bails.
Challenging the EFCC officials on their arrival, Malami, as captured in a now viral video demanded the document indicated that the house is under forfeiture.
The visibly enraged ex-AGF accused the EFCC operatives of embarrassing him as he recalled their presence earlier in the day at his first house.
“Show me where it was stated that you should come over to my property and mark my place. When a matter is in court?
“Is it under forfeiture when the order has elapsed? You are coming to embarrass me? Very early in the morning, you were in my other house. And now you are here.
“The order here is not specific and didn’t give you clear directives to come and mark my property. Are you coming here to embarrass me unnecessarily?
“Because I am in court with EFCC, so you are moving nationwide and embarrass me.” He said.
Malami would however vacate the premises while vowing to challenge the development in court.
In a statement issued later in the day, the ex-AGF disclosed that the EFCC officials, in the company of heavily armed security personnel, forcefully invaded and took over residences and offices linked to him.
He said that the residences were also marked without presenting any valid or subsisting court order authorising such actions.
Malami added that two people were taken into forceful custody in the course of the said invasion.
THE EX-AGF, as quoted in the statement issued by his Special Assistant on Media, Mohammed Doka, described the action of the anti-graft agency as condemnable and a disregard to the rule of law.
”This is nothing short of a flagrant disregard to the rule of law, a gross abuse of power, and a dangerous precedent in a constitutional democracy.
“It represents a calculated attempt to harass, intimidate, and embarrass me, evidently on account of my political affiliations,” he said.
Malami said the EFCC proceeded in a show of force, to unlawfully occupy, mark, and assert control over his houses and offices in clear violation of due process and established legal procedures.
Meanwhile the EFCC says its decision to mark a property in Abuja linked to the former attorney general of the federation and minister of justice, followed a valid interim forfeiture order issued by a court.
Dele Oyewale, the EFCC Spokesperson, said this against the backdrop of the viral video in circulation accusing the anti-graft agency of illegally marking the former AGF’s property in Abuja.
According to him, the step is in line with standard law enforcement procedures and aimed at notifying the public of the property’s legal status.
“There is nothing illegal in the matter. The attachment or marking of property that is on a forfeiture order is a normal law enforcement action when the court has granted an interim forfeiture.”
He explained that such markings were carried out to alert the public that the property was under forfeiture.
Oyewale also dismissed claims that the commission carried out a raid on the property, insisting that officers were only enforcing a court directive.
”The commission did not raid the property. We are not involved in any such act; so there is nothing illegal about what we have done,” he added.
Following the drama, the hearing of the forfeiture was slowed down with tactical delays by Malami’s legal counsel which prompted the presiding judge, Joyce Abdumalik, to threaten the lawyers.
Abdulmalik threatened to jail any lawyer, who flouts court’s rules to cause delay in the forfeiture suit.
The judge gave the warning following a complaint by EFCC lead counsel, Jibrin Okutepa (SAN) that some of the lawyers to interested parties deliberately served on him their proceses late to delay proceedings.
When the case was called, Justice Abdulmalik declined to allow lawyers, whose names were not in the cause list, announce appearance for their clients.
The judge, who condemned the act, said it was high time lawyers conducted themselves in line with the rules.
She ordered that all the interested parties shall, before April 27, file all their processes and served same on the EFCC lawyer to enable him respond appropriately.
According to her, any process that is served on April 28 should not be received.
Malami had since been making several attempts to prevent the Federal High Court’s judgement on the forfeiture. He filed an appeal before the Court of Appeal which reserved its ruling to a date yet to be communicated.
The appellate court’s silence on the date has now become deafening as the Abuja Federal High Court earlier this week announced the fixed date, 9th July 2026, for the judgement on the forfeiture. With hours now ticking into minutes, the wait on the fate of Malami’s properties gradually nears an end.