Court Orders Interim Forfeiture Of 57 Properties Linked To Malami

Special report: Court orders interim forfeiture of 57 properties linked to Malami

Case overview and court directive

Justice Emeka Nwite of the Federal High Court has ordered the interim forfeiture of 57 properties alleged to be proceeds of unlawful activities and linked to former Attorney-General of the Federation, Abubakar Malami, as well as two of his sons, Abdulaziz Malami and Abiru‑Rahman Malami. 

The order followed an ex‑parte application moved by counsel to the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC), Ekele Iheanacho. The assets, described as multi‑billion naira land and commercial holdings, are to be forfeited on an interim basis pending the outcome of further proceedings. 

The court mandated publication of the interim order in a national daily, inviting any interested parties to show cause within 14 days why a final forfeiture should not be made to the Federal Government. The matter was adjourned to January 27, 2026, for a report of compliance with the publication directive.

Scope, valuation, and locations of assets

The properties reportedly, are collectively valued at N213,234,120,000, spanning multiple high‑value urban and commercial sites. They are located across Abuja, Kebbi, Kano, and Kaduna States, reflecting a geographically diversified portfolio of residential, hospitality, educational, retail, industrial, and oil and gas assets. 

The breadth and valuation of the portfolio underscore the scale of the alleged proceeds under scrutiny by the EFCC in the forfeiture proceedings.

Notable properties and transaction details

The portfolio includes Rayhaan University buildings; agro‑allied factory buildings and machinery; hotels; a pharmacy; a supermarket; primary and secondary schools; oil and gas filling stations; shops; and other buildings. Specific assets cited include a luxury duplex on Amazon Street, Maitama, purchased in December 2022 for N500,000,000, with a post‑enhancement value of N5,950,000,000; and a two‑winged large storey building at No. 3 Onitsha Crescent, Area 11, Garki (formerly Harmonia Hotels Limited), purchased in December 2018 for N7,000,000,000. 

Another key property is Plot 683, Jabi District, Cadastral Zone B04, comprising a five‑storey building now operating as Meethaq Hotels Ltd with 53 rooms and suites; it was purchased at carcass level in September 2020 for N850,000,000 with an additional N300,000,000 paid to take possession, and cited as having a completion value of N8,400,000,000.

Further assets include Property No. 3130 in Cadastral Zone A04, Asokoro District, acquired in January 2021 for N360,000,000; and Property No. 3 Rhine Street, Maitama, now Meethaq Hotels Limited with 15 rooms, purchased in February 2018 for N430,000,000 and reported with a current value after rehabilitation of N12,950,000,000. 

Additional holdings are Plot No. 1241B in Asokoro (No. 11A Yakubu Gowon Crescent), acquired in July 2021 for N325,000,000; Shop No. C82 at Citiscape, Shariff Plaza, Wuse II, purchased in March 2024 for N120,000,000; properties at No. 4 Ahmadu Bello Way and Plot 157 Lamido Crescent in Nasarawa GRA, Kano; a plaza with commercial facilities and warehouse tanks adjacent to 100 hectares along Birnin Kebbi–Jega Road acquired in 2020 for N100,000,000; a four‑bedroom bungalow in Gesse Phase, Birnin Kebbi purchased in 2023 for N101,000,000; shops at Vegas Mall, Wuse 2 acquired in July 2023 for N158,000,000; and No. 26 Babbi Drive, Bua Estate, Abuja, purchased in 2022 for N136,000,000.

Legal posture and next steps

An interim forfeiture is a temporary measure that preserves assets while the court invites counter‑claims and evaluates whether the properties are indeed proceeds of unlawful activity. By ordering publication and a 14‑day window for interested parties to show cause, the court is enabling potential owners or stakeholders to present evidence and contest final forfeiture. 

The adjournment to January 27, 2026, is intended for the EFCC to report on compliance with the publication directive and for the court to consider any responses before deciding on a final forfeiture order.

Implications and context

If the court ultimately grants a final forfeiture, the properties would vest in the Federal Government, marking a significant outcome in an asset recovery process tied to alleged corruption and financial crimes. The breadth of assets, spanning hospitality, education, retail, and energy, signals potential ripple effects across the businesses currently operating at these sites, pending legal resolution. 

The case also underscores ongoing anti‑corruption enforcement efforts and the use of civil forfeiture tools to secure suspected illicit assets before they can be dissipated or transferred.