Malami Cries Out over Seizure of Property, Says EFCC Acting Unilaterally, Unlawfully

Alex Enumah in Abuja

The immediate past Attorney-General of the Federation (AGF) and Minister of Justice, Mr Abubakar Malami, SAN, has faulted with he described as unlawful and unilateral seizure of his properties by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC).

According to the former AGF, the anti- graft agency besides acting without a valid court order, usurped the functions and duties of the judiciary, in a matter where it is also a party.

The former minister and some members of his family were late last year arrested and arraigned on charges bordering on alleged money laundering and illegal possession of firearm.

They pleaded not guilty to the charge and has been admitted to bail to enable them defend the charge against them.

However, the EFCC on Tuesday invaded and evicted Malami’s family from their residence at number 2, Coronak Crescent, off Amazon Street, Maitama, Abuja, and then sealed off the premises.

The move is believed to be anchored on an order of temporary forfeiture against Malami’s properties.

Recall that Justice Joyce Abdumalik of a Federal High Court in Abuja, had while ruling in an exparte application brought by the EFCC ordered the temporary forfeiture of 57 properties linked to Malami on the claim that the said properties are believed to be acquired from illicit funds.

Reacting to the invasion and subsequent eviction of his family from the Maitama property, the former minister condemned the action of the agency, describing it as unprecedented in the history of the country.

“There was an attempt yesterday by the EFCC, which indeed was a co-litigant, in respect of pending criminal proceedings before Federal High Court against my person. Arising from that criminal proceeding, there was an order dated January 6, 2026, an interim order of forfeiture that was granted. But the most interesting part of the order, there was no clear directives or instructions in the order that the premises would be taken over forthwith or perhaps be sold, or perhaps evicting the occupants of their respective premises.

“But the most interesting part of it is, an application was filed at my instance for setting aside the order. And the court fixed a date against April 20, 2026 for the hearing of an application filed at my instance challenging the propriety or otherwise of the order.

“Conventionally and traditionally, by the act of securing the order by the EFCC and by the act of joining issues on my part, by way of filing an application seeking for the court order to be set aside, issues are joined by the parties.

“So it is only natural, logical, legal and judicial that no party is expected to overreach by way of taking unilateral steps that would place a court in a situation of helplessness”, he said.

Malami alleged that without further recourse to the court, without seeking for an order to seal his properties, without seeking for an order to evict him and his family members from the property, without seeking a court order for the appointment of receiver manager, the EFCC on Monday came to effect forceful eviction.

“They were unable to conclude the process yesterday (Monday) and reinforced this morning with a lot of personnel that are armed and indeed forcefully take over possession of my family residence and the family members who are equally taken out of possession.

“It is commonplace and it is in line with the tradition of the judicial process that when a matter is pending before a court, you cannot unilaterally act as a party to take steps in, I mean, or perhaps to take steps that will render the court helpless. Traditionally, when you are a party before the court, you cannot on your own embark on execution exercise. Executions of the court orders and processes are exclusive functions of the court bailiffs, court sheriffs and judicial processes and are not in any way exclusive preserves and prerogatives of a party to the litigation.

“So what happened by way of forcing, forceful eviction of my family members, forceful taking over of my properties and forceful perhaps invasion of these properties of mine is legally and judiciously unprecedented in the Nigerian history and Nigerian legal system”, he said.

Malami stated that it has never been a tradition of any institution or establishment or government to rely on interim orders of a forfeiture to force an eviction on a litigant.