Malami’s Asset Forfeiture Case: Fresh Applicants Challenge EFCC Interim Orders

former Attorney-General of the Federation (AGF) and Minister of Justice, Abubakar Malami, SAN

Malami’s Asset Forfeiture Case: Fresh Applicants Challenge EFCC Interim Orders

The legal saga involving former Attorney-General of the Federation (AGF) and Minister of Justice, Abubakar Malami (SAN) has taken a new twist, as fresh applicants have approached the Federal High Court in Abuja to challenge the interim forfeiture order placed by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) on properties linked to the ex-minister. The initial order, granted on January 6, 2026, by Justice Emeka Nwite, affected 57 properties valued at over ₦213 billion across Abuja, Kebbi, Kano, and Kaduna States, including luxury residences, commercial facilities, factories, and ancillary facilities. The ex parte order, filed through EFCC counsel Senior Advocate Ekele Iheanacho, alleged that the properties were proceeds of unlawful activities.

The latest applicants — Alhaji Muktaka Usman Junju, Rayhaan Bustan, and Agro Allied Limited — have filed motions seeking to set aside the interim forfeiture order, arguing that the EFCC failed to establish any link between their properties and criminal activity, contrary to Section 135 of the Evidence Act and the Advance Fee Fraud Act. Among the properties under challenge are Property 40, Al-Afiya Energy Tanker Garage in Birnin Kebbi, valued at ₦2.45 billion, owned by Junju; Property 1, a luxury duplex in Maitama, Abuja, purchased for ₦500 million with a current valuation of ₦5.95 billion, associated with Rayhaan Limited; and Properties 28–32, comprising factory buildings, staff quarters, equipment, and ancillary facilities under Rayhaan Agro Allied Factory in Kebbi, collectively worth several billions of naira. The applicants are seeking the immediate restoration of possession, control, and enjoyment of their properties, contending that the EFCC did not show any predicate offence linking them to Malami or criminal activity.

READ ALSO:

Alhaji Junju, through his lawyer Kalu Kalu Agu, submitted that Property 40 was legitimately acquired from an original allottee and had no connection to Malami or Al-Afiya Garage. He argued that the EFCC failed to comply with Section 44(2)(b) of the Constitution, Section 17(1) of the Advance Fee Fraud Act 2006, and Section 5 of the Assets Tracing, Recovery and Management Regulations 2019, rendering the interim forfeiture invalid. Rayhaan Limited, represented by lawyer Joseph Daudu, highlighted that its properties were acquired through legitimate banking facilities from NEXIM Bank, Bank of Industry, and Access Bank, but the interim order had triggered loan recall, revoked bank guarantees, and accruing interest charges, causing significant financial harm. Daudu emphasized that the EFCC failed to link the properties to any unlawful act, amounting to unlawful deprivation of property, denial of fair hearing, and abuse of court process. Malami himself has filed a separate motion seeking to vacate the interim forfeiture on properties tied to him, citing legitimate acquisition, declaration to the Code of Conduct Bureau, and alleged misrepresentation by the EFCC.

The case file has been transferred to Justice Obiora Egwuatu, who has fixed February 12, 2026, for the hearing of the fresh applications and Malami’s motion. Legal observers note that the case has national significance, with potential implications for due process in asset forfeiture proceedings, the powers of the EFCC, and the protection of property rights under Nigerian law. Experts say the outcome could set a legal precedent on how anti-corruption agencies pursue interim orders and enforce forfeiture of assets.

This development comes against the backdrop of a broader investigation into Malami, including money laundering charges involving over ₦8.7 billion. The EFCC’s interim forfeiture order, which initially listed 57 properties spanning residences, commercial estates, and factories, is part of ongoing efforts to recover suspected proceeds of crime, but has now faced multiple legal challenges, highlighting the complexity of balancing anti-corruption enforcement with constitutional rights to property and fair hearing.

As the February 12 hearing approaches, the legal community and public await a ruling that could reshape asset recovery processes in Nigeria, determine the fate of Malami-linked properties, and clarify the extent of judicial oversight over EFCC actions. The case continues to attract intense media scrutiny, reflecting growing interest in transparency, accountability, and rule of law in Nigeria’s fight against grand corruption.