BREAKING: Federal High Court orders interim forfeiture of 57 properties linked to former Attorney-General of the Federation, Abubakar Malami
Federal High Court orders interim forfeiture of 57 properties linked to former Attorney-General of the Federation, Abubakar Malami, following an ex-parte motion filed by EFCC, citing suspicions that the assets are proceeds of unlawful activity.
The properties listed span Abuja, Kebbi, Kano, and Kaduna states and include luxury hotels, duplexes, plazas, warehouses, shopping units and residential estates acquired over several years.
Among them are a luxury duplex on Amazon Street in Maitama purchased in December 2022 for N500 million and later valued at N5.95 billion after enhancement; a two-winged storey building on Onitsha Crescent, Area 11, Garki, formerly Harmonia Hotels Limited, acquired in December 2018 for N7 billion; and a five-storey hotel building in Jabi, now operating as Meethaq Hotels Ltd with 53 rooms, valued at N8.4 billion after completion.
Other assets include Meethaq Hotels Ltd in Maitama with 15 rooms; terraces in Asokoro; multiple residential properties in Gwarimpa, Apo Legislative Quarters and Wuse II; warehouses in Wuse Market; shopping units in Vegas Mall and Shariff Plaza; as well as properties in Kano, Kaduna and Birnin Kebbi, including plazas, bungalows, land and housing units.
The order, which temporarily vests control of the multi-billion-naira assets in the Federal Government, followed an ex-parte application by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) and was granted by Justice Nwite.
In granting the application, Justice Nwite held that the properties were reasonably suspected to be proceeds of unlawful activities and ordered their interim forfeiture.
“It is hereby ordered that an interim order of this honourable court is hereby made forfeiting to the Federal Government of Nigeria the properties described in Schedule 1 below which are reasonably suspected to be proceeds of unlawful activities,” the judge said.
Beyond the temporary seizure, the court directed that the forfeiture order be published in a national daily, effectively inviting third parties to come forward and contest the action.