The judgment was delivered on Wednesday by Justice Joyce Abdulmalik of the Federal High Court in Abuja, who ruled that the anti-graft agency successfully established that the assets were reasonably suspected to be proceeds of unlawful activities and were not acquired through legitimate sources of income.
Among the high-profile assets forfeited are Rayhaan University in Kebbi State, including its permanent, temporary and third campuses, the Vice Chancellor's residence, as well as Rayhaan Radio located along Sani Abacha Bypass Road in Birnin Kebbi.
The court also ordered the forfeiture of several luxury residential and commercial properties across Abuja, Kano and Kebbi States. They include high-value hotels, duplexes, plazas, warehouses, shopping complexes, residential estates, expansive land holdings, filling stations and industrial facilities.
Other assets affected by the ruling include Rayhaan Agro Allied Factory, complete with its factory buildings, machinery, staff quarters and mosque, as well as Azbir Arena, which comprises Azbir Hotel, a printing press, gallery, gardens, mosque, clothing outlet, pharmacy and supermarket.
Also forfeited are the Zeennoor Hotel in Kano with its 131 rooms, the Zeennoor Mosque, the old Zeennoor Hotel building, Al-Afiya Energy tanker garage, Rayhaan Security House, an uncompleted commercial plaza in Birnin Kebbi and several other commercial and residential developments.
The final forfeiture followed an interim order granted on January 6, 2026, by Justice Emeka Nwite after an ex parte application filed by EFCC counsel, Ekele Iheanacho (SAN).
In compliance with the court's directive, the EFCC published notices in national newspapers inviting interested parties to show cause why the properties should not be permanently forfeited to the Federal Government.
Following the publication, Malami and 14 other respondents, including members of his family and associates, challenged the interim forfeiture order, questioned the court's jurisdiction and urged the court to reject the EFCC's application for final forfeiture.
After hearing arguments from both parties on May 27, 2026, Justice Abdulmalik reserved judgment.
In her ruling, the judge held that the respondents failed to discharge the evidential burden required in non-conviction-based forfeiture proceedings.
According to the court, the respondents merely claimed ownership of the assets without presenting credible evidence showing that the properties were acquired through lawful earnings.
Justice Abdulmalik further held that in non-conviction-based forfeiture cases, ownership claims alone are insufficient, stressing that respondents must provide satisfactory evidence establishing the legitimate sources of funds used in acquiring the assets.
The ruling marks one of the most significant asset forfeiture victories recorded by the EFCC in recent years, with dozens of high-value properties across multiple states now vested in the Federal Government.
0 Comments
Join the conversation!
Have insights, corrections, or questions about this news story? Drop your comment below. We value civil, fact-based discussion.