KEY POINTS
- The Court of Appeal in Abuja reserved ruling on Abubakar Malami’s bid to challenge a forfeiture order on 57 properties.
- The EFCC argues the case should follow fast-track corruption rules and that Malami missed the appeal window.
- The Federal High Court had earlier ordered interim forfeiture of the properties as suspected proceeds of unlawful activities.
The Court of Appeal in Abuja on Thursday reserved ruling on former Attorney-General Abubakar Malami’s bid to challenge a Federal High Court order forfeiting 57 of his properties to the Federal Government, in a fight pitting two senior advocates over fast-track corruption rules.
Malami, who served as Attorney-General and Justice Minister throughout the eight-year Buhari administration, is asking the appellate court for an extension of time to seek leave to appeal a ruling delivered by Justice Joyce Abdulmalik. His counsel, Joseph Daudu, SAN, told the panel led by Justice Abba Mohammed that the Federal High Court ruling cannot stand unchallenged.
Now the three-member panel will hand down its ruling on a date the court will communicate to the parties.
The forfeiture order
Specifically, the dispute traces to a January 6 order by Justice Emeka Nwite, who ruled on an EFCC ex parte application for interim forfeiture of properties suspected to be proceeds of unlawful activities. Justice Nwite directed the anti-graft agency to publish the order in a national daily, giving interested parties 14 days to show cause why the assets should not be permanently forfeited.
The case later moved to Justice Obiora Egwuatu after the court’s vacation. However, Egwuatu recused himself, citing personal reasons and the interest of justice, and the matter passed to Justice Abdulmalik, whose subsequent ruling now sits at the heart of Malami’s appeal.
Indeed, Daudu told the appellate court that his application combined three reliefs: extension of time to seek leave, leave to appeal and extension of time to appeal. The senior advocate said a four-paragraph affidavit and the contested ruling supported the motion.
Moreover, Daudu argued that interlocutory appeals must include the ruling under challenge, and that any delay arose from the lower court’s release of the certified copy. He urged the panel to treat the EFCC’s objection on timing as outdated, saying it no longer reflects current procedural law.
“To file an application without attaching the ruling will render the application incompetent, particularly as the delay was from the court,” Daudu said.
EFCC pushes back
Meanwhile, EFCC counsel Jibril Okutepa, SAN, called the application “unnecessary” and asked the court to dismiss it. Okutepa said the matter sits within the fast-track practice direction because it concerns property “fraudulently acquired while Malami was AGF.”
Additionally, Okutepa cited rule four of the relevant practice direction, which discourages interlocutory appeals on points that the trial court can address at the final stage. He said Malami had failed to show substantial reason for missing the appeal window.
Furthermore, Okutepa argued that the matter ought to commence de novo because the original ex parte order issued by Justice Nwite has elapsed, undermining the procedural footing on which the appeal rests.
Daudu fires back
Today, Daudu countered that Okutepa’s reliance on the fast-track rules is misplaced because the EFCC did not raise them in its counter-affidavit. He said interlocutory appeals on jurisdictional questions remain legally available, even if the courts generally discourage their use.
Together, the exchanges left the panel weighing not just the timing of Malami’s appeal, but the broader question of how aggressively the courts should hear interlocutory challenges in high-profile asset-forfeiture matters.
Whether the panel grants Malami room to appeal or upholds the EFCC’s objection will set a marker for how the agency pursues forfeiture cases against senior former officials. Yet for now, Malami’s 57 properties remain under interim federal control while he waits for the appellate court to set a date.
