BY: CHIJIOKE CHARLES
Former Attorney-General of the Federation, Abubakar Malami, has alleged that the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) deliberately exaggerated the value of his assets to mislead the court into granting an interim forfeiture order on 57 properties linked to him.
The development follows a January 6 ruling by a Federal High Court in Abuja, presided over by Justice Emeka Nwite, which ordered the temporary forfeiture of the properties said to be worth over N213 billion and suspected to be proceeds of unlawful activities.
The court had also directed the EFCC to publish the order and invite interested parties to show cause why a final forfeiture should not be granted.
However, in an affidavit filed on Monday, Malami described the valuation presented by the EFCC as “manifest exaggeration” and “malicious inflation,” insisting that the figures were manipulated to secure the court’s approval.
“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,” he said.
Citing specific examples, Malami claimed that a duplex in Maitama purchased for N500 million was valued by the EFCC at N5.95 billion. He also said the permanent site of Rayhaan University, which he acquired for N150 million, was valued at N56 billion, while its temporary site, bought for N400 million, was put at N37.8 billion by the commission. According to him, an independent valuation conducted by Jide Taiwo & Co returned significantly lower figures.
Malami further argued that the anti-graft agency failed to establish any link between the properties and criminal activity.
“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,” he stated.
He maintained that all assets were lawfully acquired and properly declared to the Code of Conduct Bureau in 2015, 2019, and 2023. He also outlined multiple income sources, including legal practice, business ventures, asset sales, gifts, and proceeds from book launches, insisting that “every kobo utilised in the acquisition of the properties are fully traceable to lawful earnings.”
The EFCC has yet to publicly respond to the latest claims, but the agency had earlier maintained that the properties were reasonably suspected to be proceeds of unlawful activities, which justified the interim forfeiture order.
The case adds to Malami’s ongoing legal troubles, as he is also facing separate charges before another Federal High Court in Abuja bordering on money laundering and illegal possession of firearms.
The outcome of the case could have far-reaching implications for asset recovery proceedings in Nigeria, particularly regarding valuation standards and the evidentiary threshold required for forfeiture orders. A ruling in Malami’s favour may challenge the EFCC’s methodology and weaken similar cases, while a decision upholding the forfeiture could reinforce the agency’s powers in anti-corruption efforts.
.
