The Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) has asked the Federal High Court in Abuja to permanently forfeit 57 properties allegedly linked to Abubakar Malami to the Federal Government.

The request was made through a motion filed by the EFCC’s legal team led by Jibrin Okutepa and Ekele Iheanacho before Justice Joyce Abdulmalik. The commission argued that the respondents failed to provide sufficient justification to overturn an earlier interim forfeiture order.

The suit, marked FHC/ABJ/CS/20/2026, lists several individuals and companies as respondents, including Malami and multiple firms allegedly linked to him. The EFCC is seeking the forfeiture under provisions of the Advance Fee Fraud and Other Fraud-Related Offences Act, 2006, maintaining that the properties are reasonably suspected to be proceeds of unlawful activities.

According to the EFCC, the interim forfeiture order, previously granted by Justice Emeka Nwite and published in a national newspaper was not effectively challenged within the stipulated timeframe. The case was later reassigned after Justice Obiora Egwuatu recused himself.

In an affidavit, an EFCC investigator detailed extensive inquiries involving agencies such as the Corporate Affairs Commission, Federal Inland Revenue Service, Code of Conduct Bureau, and land registries. The investigation included site inspections, asset valuation, and interviews.

The EFCC also presented financial records indicating that Malami’s total legitimate earnings between 2015 and 2023, including salary, severance, and travel allowances were significantly lower than the value of the assets under investigation. It further alleged that some properties were acquired through proxies and associated companies, including entities linked to the Rayhaan Group.

The properties in question are located across Abuja, Kebbi, Kano, and Kaduna states, with some reportedly lacking proper building approvals, an indication, according to the EFCC, of attempts to conceal the origin of funds.

Justice Abdulmalik has fixed April 21 for the hearing of the motion. Meanwhile, Malami and other respondents have filed applications challenging the forfeiture and seeking to set aside the interim order.