…Says, “my assets have no link whatsoever” with alleged crime
Former Attorney General of the Federation and Minister of Justice, Mr. Abubakar Malami, has accused the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) of manifest exaggeration aimed at inflating the value of his assets to mislead the court just to secure an interim forfeiture order.
This was as he argued that the EFCC failed woefully to establish any connection between the assets and criminal activities.
A Federal High Court sitting in Abuja and presided over by Justice Emeka Nwite, on January 6, 2026, granted an interim forfeiture of 57 properties belonging to Malami, suspected to be proceeds of unlawful activities.
The EFCC alleged that the properties were valued at N213,234,120,000.
In his ruling, Justice Nwite held that the properties were reasonably suspected to have been acquired with proceeds of unlawful activities and should be temporarily forfeited to the federal government.
Justice Nwite also directed the EFCC to publish the interim forfeiture order in a national newspaper, inviting any individual or organisation with an interest in the assets to appear before the court within 14 days and show cause why a final forfeiture order should not be made.
But, in an affidavit filed before the court, Malami averred that the EFCC relied on “manifest exaggeration” and “malicious inflation” of property values.
In the words of Malimi; “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 this honourable court”.
Malami specifically noted multiple examples where he stressed that the EFCC’s valuation far exceeded actual purchase prices or independent assessments.
Malami particularly declared that a luxury duplex in Maitama, Abuja, acquired for N500 million, was valued by the EFCC at N5.95 billion, adding that in the same vein, the EFCC valued the permanent site of Rayhaan University, purchased for N150 million at N56 billion by the commission.
The former AGF pointedly challenged the valuation of the university’s temporary site, which was acquired for N400 million, but assessed by the EFCC at N37.8 billion.
Malami said an independent valuation by estate firm Jide Taiwo & Co showed significantly lower figures than those presented by the EFCC.
In the words of Malami; “There is no prima facie evidence showing that my properties are liable for interim forfeiture to the Federal Government of Nigeria, and no acquisition of any of the properties is linked to a predicate offence.
“The Commission did not present any document showing that the properties were acquired with proceeds of crime or funds belonging to the federal government,” he stressed.
Malami emphasised that the assets were declared in his filings with the Code of Conduct Bureau (CCB) across multiple years, including 2015, 2019 and 2023.
He further said; “I declared all the aforementioned properties and my interest in the respective Companies who own some of the assets listed above in the asset declaration form for public officers’ form CCB 1 at the beginning of my first tenure in 2015, on 12/10/2015.
“Secondly, at the end of my first tenure in the year 2019, on 30th July, 2019, thirdly, at the inception of my second term of office as the Honourable Attorney General of the Federation in 2019, on 3rd October, 2019, and at the end of my 2nd tenure in 2023, on 26th June, 2023,” he explained.
Malami also outlined several sources of his income, including earnings from legal practice, business ventures, asset sales, and gifts, stressing that his businesses generated over N10 billion in turnover between 2015 and 2023, while N574 million came from disposed assets.
The former AGF also listed N958 million received as legitimate gifts and N509 million realised from book launches, saying that all funds used to acquire the properties were traceable to legitimate sources.
In the words of Malami; “Every kobo utilised in the acquisition of the properties are fully traceable to lawful earnings. The law does not permit forfeiture on conjecture, suspicion, or unsubstantiated allegations”.
Malami therefore prayed the court to set aside the forfeiture order, emphasising that it was based on speculation rather than evidence.
The case is expected to continue at the court on a date to be fixed.
