Malami forfeiture dispute intensifies as EFCC rejects claims of fair hearing breach in ongoing interim forfeiture case

Former Attorney General of the Federation and Minister of Justice, Abubakar Malami, SAN, has accused anti graft agencies of obstructing his right to fair hearing, setting the stage for a heated Malami forfeiture dispute now playing out before the Federal High Court.

Also read: Tonye Jaja files explosive rights suit against Malami

Malami, in a statement issued on Saturday, alleged that actions by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission and the Department of State Services were a deliberate attempt to frustrate his ability to properly defend himself in an ongoing interim forfeiture case.

The former justice minister, who served between 2015 and 2023 under the administration of President Muhammadu Buhari, has remained under intense scrutiny since leaving office.

Multiple probes over alleged financial misconduct and abuse of office have placed him at the centre of one of the most high profile post Buhari era investigations involving former top government officials.

At the heart of the Malami forfeiture dispute is an EFCC application seeking interim forfeiture of assets linked to the former attorney general.

Prosecutors argue that the properties and funds should be temporarily seized pending the determination of substantive criminal allegations.

Interim forfeiture proceedings allow the state to take custody of disputed assets while investigations or trials continue.

However, Malami’s camp insists that the process has been marred by rights violations and procedural abuse.

His Special Assistant on Media, Mohammed Doka, claimed that after charges were filed, the court granted Malami bail with conditions that included the immediate surrender of his international passports.

He alleged that the EFCC delayed submitting the passports for about a week, prolonging Malami’s detention and slowing the execution of the bail order.

Doka further alleged that Malami was detained for five days without access to lawyers or family members and only allowed to meet his legal team after what he described as prolonged isolation and grave violations of his fundamental human rights.

He said denying access to counsel weakened preparation and undermined due process before the court.

The media aide criticised what he called a troubling pattern of arrests carried out before investigations were concluded, with evidence allegedly gathered only after suspects were detained.

He warned that such practices eroded public confidence in the rule of law and weakened judicial oversight.

Responding to the allegations, the EFCC firmly rejected claims of misconduct. The agency’s Head of Media and Publicity, Dele Oyewale, said the commission had acted professionally and strictly within the limits of its statutory powers.

Oyewale argued that once Malami was charged to court and granted bail, it was no longer the responsibility of the EFCC to ensure compliance with bail conditions.

He said the commission could not be blamed for any delay in meeting those conditions, describing the accusations as misplaced.

Meanwhile, officials of the DSS also dismissed claims that the former attorney general was denied access to visitors.

One officer said Malami had received family visits, including from his son, and was allowed visitors upon request in line with standardised procedures applied to high profile detainees.

The officer added that similar procedures applied to other sensitive cases nationwide and were designed to protect suspects while safeguarding ongoing investigations.

He stressed that once conditions were met, detainees, including Malami, were granted access to their lawyers and visitors.

Also read: DSS seeks prolonged detention of Ex-AGF Malami

As the Malami forfeiture dispute continues, the case is expected to test the balance between aggressive anti corruption enforcement and the protection of fundamental rights, with significant implications for public trust in Nigeria’s justice system.