Questions The Nigerian Public Deserves Answers To On The Recent Judgment Of Forfeiture On Malami’s Property -By Hajia Hadiza Mohammed

A popular Nigerian comedian once joked that the rich people in Nigerian thinks that the poor are witches and wizards while the poor believes that the rich are ritual and occult men. This might be a joke but it goes to show the level of misconception of reality in Nigeria. Because of the level of poverty in Nigeria, the rich and the propertied class are seen as thieves. Every rich person especially one that has held public office is seen as corrupt even when there is no evidence. There are many wealthy people who made their wealth legitimately and also, there are public servants that serve creditably without smearing their hands in corrupt practices.

Property acquisition is not only from proceeds of corruption or illegitimate business as presupposes by the EFCC operatives most times. The law recognizes different ways through which assets and properties can be acquired. Through original acquisition that is being the first to possess or discover something or an asset, ownership can be established. Another way is through government allocation. Other means are through purchase, gift, inheritance/will or succession, donation, exchange or barter. Additionally, properties could be acquired through the process of law. An example is when court orders a transfer of asset of a debtor to the creditor etc.

Unfortunately, in prosecuting people for alleged corrupt practices and fraud, the prosecuting agencies erroneously assumes that every property owner acquires the property through sales and purchase means without recognizing that there other genuine ways through which assets can be acquired. And without any proof or evidence of corruption so-called anti-graft agencies can on the basis of suspicion arrest, parade and prosecute property owners especially those that are assumed to be the enemies of those in power.

But there is a decided case on this matter. The Supreme Court in Melrose General Services Ltd. v. EFCC [2025] 1 NWLR (Pt. 1972) 1 held that an interim forfeiture order cannot be granted merely on suspicion. There must be objective evidence establishing a reasonable basis for believing that the property is the proceeds of a specific unlawful activity.

Against that standard, the following questions deserve clear answers:

1. What Was the Alleged Crime?
2. What specific unlawful activity did the EFCC allege that led to the acquisition of the properties forfeited?
3. Which offence under the statutes listed in section 17 of the Advance Fee Fraud and Other Fraud Related Offences Act was reasonably suspected to have been allegedly committed?
4. What facts were presented to the Court showing that any of those statutes had been breached?
5. If no specific unlawful activity was identified, how could the property be described as the proceeds of unlawful activity?
6. Where Is the Alleged Stolen Money?
7. What specific amount of public money was alleged to have been stolen?
8. From which Ministry, Department or Agency was the money allegedly diverted?
9. What funds of the Ministry of Justice were acquired and disguised?
10. On what date was the alleged diversion said to have occurred?
11. Into which account was the allegedly diverted money first paid?
12. If no stolen money has been identified, what exactly constitutes the alleged proceeds of crime?
13. Where Is the Financial Trail?
14. What evidence was presented showing that any allegedly stolen funds were transferred to the companies whose properties were forfeited?
15. Which bank statement, transfer record, payment voucher, SWIFT message or financial document links the companies to any alleged proceeds of crime?
16. Was any forensic financial analysis presented tracing alleged unlawful funds into the acquisition of the Properties?
17. If the allegation is that “disguised funds” were used, what were those funds, where did they originate, and through what transactions were they allegedly disguised?
18. Was any evidence produced identifying the vendor of Property No. 46 and demonstrating that the purchase price came from unlawful funds?
19. If no money trail exists, on what evidential basis was the property alleged to be proceeds of crime?
20. What Evidence Connected the Properties to Abubakar Malami, SAN?
21. What evidence established that Mr. Abubakar Malami, SAN personally provided the funds used to acquire all the Properties?
22. What evidence established that the property was acquired during his tenure as Attorney-General using unlawful proceeds?
23. Was any witness or documentary evidence produced showing that Mr. Malami paid for the properties using public funds?
24. If there was no evidence tracing any public funds from Mr. Malami to acquire the properties, what was the evidential nexus relied upon by the Court?
25. Was There Any Proper Valuation?
26. Was a professional valuation of Properties conducted by EFCC before the forfeiture application?
27. Who prepared the valuation report?
28. Was the valuation report exhibited before the Court?
29. Why did the court reject the valuation reports presented for the properties, when the over-bloated valuation was the basis of the Court’s suspicion?
30. Why did the court not order an independent valuation of the properties since the question evidently was the comparison of source of income and the capacity to acquire the properties?
31. Since there was material conflict in the valuation of the properties, why did the Court not order oral evidence?
32. On what basis was the value of the property determined if no valuation report was produced?
33. Compliance with the Supreme Court’s Decision
34. The Supreme Court has held that there must be objective facts establishing a reasonable basis for suspecting that property is the proceeds of unlawful activity. What objective facts connected the Properties to any identified unlawful activity?
35. If no unlawful activity was identified, no stolen funds were particularized, no financial trail was established, no corporate nexus was proved, and no evidential link connectedthe Properties to proceeds of crime, how was the statutory threshold of reasonable suspicion under section 17 of the Advance Fee Fraud and Other Fraud Related Offences Act satisfied?

These are the pertinent questions pertaining to the judgment of asset forfeiture recently delivered against Abubakar Malami, SAN. And until the answers to these question are provided justice is not seen to have been done in the case. Nigeria, we must seek justice always. Long live Nigeria!

Hajia Hadiza Mohammed

hajiahadizamohammed@gmail.com

An actress, social activist, politician

London, UK