The Federal High Court, Abuja Division, on Tuesday fixed July 6 for judgement in the forfeiture suit filed by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) against 57 properties linked to a former Attorney-General of the Federation (AGF), Abubakar Malami.
Judge Joyce Abdulmalik fixed the date after the EFCC’s lawyer, Jibrin Okutepa, SAN, and counsel to Mr Malami and other respondents, Adedayo Adedeji, SAN, adopted their processes and presented their arguments for and against the case.
The anti-graft agency had, in the suit, sought the final forfeiture of the properties for reasonably suspected to be proceeds of unlawful activities.
Moving the motion, Mr Okutepa told the court that the suit, filed in February, was supported by a 47-paragraph affidavit with 46 exhibits.
The lawyer, who said the motion was in “three volumes,” prayed the court to grant the application.
Relying on the processes, he urged the court to hold that Mr Malami and other respondents had “woefully failed to show cause” that the properties “were acquired legitimately.”
He urged the court to order the forfeiture of the properties permanently to the federal government.
Responding, Mr Adedeji said the application, filed on February 27 and supported by a 109-paragraph affidavit, was deposed to by Mr Malami himself.
He said the affidavit was filed to show cause why the final forfeiture order should not be granted.
Mr Adedeji urged the court not only to set aside the earlier interim order, but also to hold that the respondents had demonstrated that the properties “were not acquired from proceeds of crime.”
He argued that the EFCC merely relied on suspicion to allege that the properties were acquired with proceeds of crime.
“The court deals with evidence, not suspicion,” he said.
He urged the court to discountenance the submission of EFCC’s lawyer.
Mr Adedeji further argued that the prosecution relied on “extra judicial evidence” ordinarily meant for cross examination during criminal trial proceedings as evidence in the current case.
He said there was no way the court could properly determine the matter without oral evidence, which the court had earlier refused.
He maintained that the properties, including some acquired before Malami assumed office, “were not proceeds of crime.”
Mr Adedeji also moved other separate counter affidavits and further affidavits on behalf of some other respondents and companies listed in the matter.
He urged the court to refuse the forfeiture request.
Besides, other lawyers, who equally appeared for individuals and some companies seeking to show cause, urged the court to dismiss the final forfeiture application in the interest of justice.
Justice Abdulmalik consequently adjourned the matter until July 6 for judgement.
After all parties adopted their processes, the judge adjourned the matter until 6 July for ruling and judgement.
(NAN)
