The alleged N8.7 billion money laundering case involving ex-Attorney General of the Federation (AGF), Abubakar Malami (SAN), and two others, and the asset forfeiture case involving him have now been reassigned to a new judge.

Late last year, the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) instituted the money laundering case against Malami, his son, Abdulaziz, and a lady said to be an employee of Rahamaniyya Properties Limited, a firm allegedly linked to the former minister, Hajia Bashir Asabe.

In the EFCC’s assets forfeiture case against Malami, the agency is targeting about 57 properties the ex-AGF allegedly acquired unlawfully.

Malami, Abdulaziz, and Hajia Asabe were arraigned on December 30, last year, on a 16-count charge before Justice Emeka Nwite, who was then sitting as the vacation judge at the Abuja Division of the Federal High Court.

On January 6, Justice Nwite also heard and granted an ex parte motion filed by the EFCC for the interim forfeiture of the 57 properties Malami allegedly acquired unlawfully.

In line with the court’s tradition, Justice Nwite, at the conclusion of the court’s vacation, returned both cases to the court’s Chief Judge for reassignment to new judges.

The Nation learnt that both cases have since been assigned to Justice Obiora Egwuatu, who has since scheduled them for hearing.

It was further learnt that the assets forfeiture case has been scheduled for February 12, while the one relating to alleged money laundering has been fixed for February 16 for arraignment.

In the charge, the EFCC is, among others, claiming that Malami and his two co-defendants conspired to disguise the origin of funds estimated at N8.7 billion, acquire properties indirectly, and retain sums they allegedly knew were proceeds of unlawful activity, in violation of the Money Laundering (Prohibition and Prevention) Acts of 2011 (as amended) and 2022.

Malami has challenged the interim order issued for the temporary forfeiture of some of his assets.

In a motion filed by his lawyer, Joseph Daudu (SAN), Malami urged a Federal High Court in Abuja to reverse its order issued on January 6 for the interim forfeiture of some of his property.

In the motion, Malami is seeking the release of three of the 57 property affected by the interim forfeiture order.

The three properties include Plot 157, Lamido Crescent, Nasarawa, GRA, Kano, purchased in July 31, 2019.

The others are: a Bedroom Duplex and Boys Quarters located at House Number 12, Yalinga Street, off Adetokunbo Ademola Crescent, Wuse 2, Abuja, purchased in October 2018 at N150 million, and ADC Kadi Malami Foundation Building, bought at N56 million, listed as Number 18 and Number 48 in the schedule of property the EFCC submitted to the court.

Malami argued that the property listed as numbers: Nine, 18, and 48, the subject of the interim forfeiture, especially those listed in his various asset declaration forms, are not linked by prima facie evidence of an unlawful activity or a specific offence.

He added: “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.”

The former AGF averred that he copiously listed his earnings in his asset declaration form filed with the CCB to include: N374,630,900 million income from salaries, estacodes, severance allowance, and others;

“Sitting allowances as a board/committee member of the Federal Judicial Service Commission, Federal Capital Territory Judicial Service Commission, Legal Practitioner Privileges Committee, and a high-powered presidential committee.

“(The sum of) N574,073,000 (Five hundred and seventy-four million, and seventy-three thousand naira) as Income generated through disposed assets

“(The sum of) N10,017,382,684 (Ten billion, seventeen million, three hundred and eighty-two thousand, six hundred and eighty-four thousand naira) turnover from businesses.

“(The sum of) N2,522,000,000 (Two billion, five hundred and twenty-two million naira) being loans to businesses

“(The sum of) N958,000,000 (Nine hundred and fifty-eight million naira) as a traditional gift from personal friends.”

Malami also stated that a total of N509,880,000 (Five hundred and nine million, eight hundred and eighty thousand naira) was realised as income from the launch and public presentation of a book titled: “Contemporary Issues on Nigerian Law and Practice, Thorny Terrains in Traversing the Nigerian Justice Sector: My Travails and Triumphs,” written by Malami.

“These streams of income, and the continuing profits generated from the businesses over the years, sufficiently show that the properties sought to be forfeited were acquired through legitimate and lawful means as stated in the asset declaration forms,” he said.

According to him, the order of interim forfeiture is not based on any prima facie establishment of unlawful purpose and is liable to be set aside.

The former AGF also argued that the court wrongly granted the order of interim forfeiture against these properties, which were lawfully acquired post appointment of the respondent/applicant and declared with the Code of Conduct Bureau as legitimate assets of the respondent/applicant, in compliance with the Fifth Schedule to the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, in 2019 and 2023.

“The interim order was obtained ex parte by suppression of material facts and misrepresentation.

“The interim order for forfeiture was obtained by manifest exaggeration, malicious inflation of the value of the assets, and unreasonable and incompetent valuation deliberately manipulated to mislead the court, negatively affecting its discretion in granting an order based on manipulated facts and conclusions deliberately cooked up by the applicant/respondent (EFCC).

“That there is no prima facie evidence placed before this honourable court by the applicant/respondent (EFCC) to warrant the properties linked to the respondent/applicant (Malami) to be liable for forfeiture to the Federal Government of Nigeria.

“The proper remedy for preventing conflicting outcomes, duplicative litigation, is for this honourable court to dismiss or strike out this suit.

“That this proceeding is an assault on the applicant’s fundamental right to property, his presumption of innocence and his right to live in peace with his family,” Malami said. (The Nation)

Update news