The Court of Appeal in Abuja on Thursday reserved ruling in an application filed by former Attorney-General of the Federation and Minister of Justice, Abubakar Malami, challenging proceedings in the ongoing forfeiture case involving 57 properties linked to him.
A three-member panel of the appellate court led by Justice Abba Mohammed heard arguments from lawyers representing Malami and the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) before announcing that judgment had been reserved.
The court, however, did not fix a date for the ruling, saying all parties would be informed once the decision is ready.
The legal battle is part of a wider anti-corruption case involving properties which the EFCC claims are suspected proceeds of unlawful activities allegedly traced to the former minister.
Malami, through his lawyer, Joseph Daudu (SAN), is seeking permission from the Court of Appeal to challenge a ruling earlier delivered by Justice Joyce Abdulmalik of the Federal High Court, Abuja.
The former AGF is also asking the appellate court to extend the time allowed for him to file his appeal.
During Thursday’s proceedings, Daudu told the court that the application before the panel sought three major reliefs — extension of time to seek leave to appeal, leave to appeal against the Federal High Court ruling, and extension of time within which the appeal itself could be filed.
According to him, the delay in filing the appeal was caused mainly by the time it took to obtain the certified true copy of the lower court’s ruling.
The senior lawyer argued that the delay was not due to negligence on the part of his client but was connected to court procedures beyond their control.
He explained that under the current rules of court, any party filing an interlocutory appeal must attach the ruling being challenged.
Daudu said failure to attach such ruling would render the appeal incompetent and liable to dismissal.
“The rules of court now require that the ruling sought to be appealed against must be attached to an interlocutory appeal,” he told the court.
He further argued that the objections raised by the EFCC were based on an old Supreme Court decision which, according to him, no longer reflected the present legal position.
Daudu also challenged the EFCC’s reliance on the Court of Appeal’s fast-track practice direction for corruption and financial crime cases.
According to him, the anti-graft agency did not raise the issue in its written response and therefore should not introduce it during oral arguments before the court.
The former AGF’s lawyer insisted that there was nothing illegal about filing interlocutory appeals, especially in matters involving jurisdiction and procedural questions.
He said although courts often discourage unnecessary delays in corruption cases, parties still have constitutional rights to challenge decisions where they believe legal procedures were not properly followed.
Daudu urged the court to grant the application and allow Malami to proceed with his appeal.
However, counsel to the EFCC, Jibrin Okutepa (SAN), opposed the request and asked the court to dismiss the application.
Okutepa argued that the application was unnecessary and capable of slowing down the substantive forfeiture case already before the Federal High Court.
He told the appellate court that the matter clearly fell under the fast-track practice direction introduced to speed up corruption and financial crime cases in Nigeria.
According to him, the issues Malami intends to raise in the appeal could easily be addressed during the final hearing of the main case instead of filing separate interlocutory appeals.
“This has to do with property fraudulently acquired while Malami was Attorney-General of the Federation,” Okutepa submitted.
The senior lawyer also argued that Malami failed to provide strong reasons for not filing the appeal within the period allowed by law.
He maintained that the EFCC had followed due process in securing the interim forfeiture order against the properties and urged the appellate court not to allow further delays.
Okutepa also drew attention to the history of the case and the changes in judges handling the matter at the Federal High Court.
According to him, the EFCC first obtained an interim forfeiture order through an ex parte application heard by Justice Emeka Nwite.
He explained that after the annual court vacation, the case was reassigned to another judge before eventually landing before Justice Joyce Abdulmalik, whose ruling is now being challenged by Malami.
The EFCC lawyer said Malami’s legal team argued that proceedings should begin afresh because the earlier interim order granted by Justice Nwite had allegedly expired before the matter was reassigned.
But Okutepa disagreed with that position and urged the Court of Appeal to allow the Federal High Court continue hearing the substantive case without interruption.
After listening to both sides, the appellate court announced that ruling had been reserved.
The case has attracted national attention because of Malami’s role as Nigeria’s former chief law officer under the administration of former President Muhammadu Buhari.
Malami served as Attorney-General of the Federation and Minister of Justice from 2015 to 2023, making him one of the longest-serving AGFs in recent Nigerian history.
During his time in office, he played a major role in the Federal Government’s anti-corruption policies and prosecution of several high-profile cases.
However, his tenure was also surrounded by controversies and allegations from critics who accused him of selective justice and political interference in some corruption matters.
The current forfeiture case is therefore seen by many observers as one of the most politically sensitive legal battles involving a former top official of the Buhari administration.
The EFCC had earlier secured an interim forfeiture order against the 57 properties on January 6 after filing an ex parte application before the Federal High Court in Abuja.
Justice Emeka Nwite granted the request and directed the anti-graft agency to temporarily seize the properties pending the determination of the case.
The court also ordered the EFCC to publish the interim forfeiture notice in a national newspaper to allow anyone with interest in the properties to appear before the court and explain why the assets should not be permanently forfeited to the Federal Government.
Under Nigerian law, interim forfeiture orders are temporary measures used by anti-corruption agencies to preserve assets suspected to have been acquired through unlawful means until investigations and court proceedings are concluded.
The matter later experienced procedural changes after Justice Obiora Egwuatu, who inherited the case after reassignment, withdrew from handling it.
Justice Egwuatu reportedly recused himself for personal reasons and in the interest of justice.
The case was thereafter reassigned to Justice Joyce Abdulmalik, whose ruling has now become the subject of Malami’s appeal application before the Court of Appeal.
Legal analysts say the appellate court’s decision could determine the pace and direction of the substantive forfeiture proceedings.
For now, attention remains focused on the Court of Appeal as parties await the ruling that may either allow Malami’s appeal to proceed or clear the way for the Federal High Court to continue hearing the forfeiture case without further delay.