According to the News Agency of Nigeria (NAN), the judge scheduled a decision for July 6 on May 26.
Following the adoption of their procedures and the presentation of reasons for and against the forfeiture process by the EFCC counsel, Jibrin Okutepa, SAN, and the counsel to Malami and other respondents, Adedayo Adedeji, SAN, Justice Abdulmalik set the date.
According to NAN, the anti-graft agency sought the ultimate seizure of the properties that were reasonably suspected of being the proceeds of illegal activity in the lawsuit.
Okutepa informed the court that the application, which was submitted in February, was backed by a 47-paragraph affidavit with 46 documents when he moved it on the most recent postponed date.
The attorney asked the court to approve the application, stating that it was in “three volumes.”
He asked the court to rule that Malami and the other respondents had “woefully failed to show cause” that the assets “were acquired legitimately,” citing the procedures.
He pleaded with the judge to grant the federal government permanent confiscation of the properties.
In response, Adedeji stated that Malami himself had deposed to the application, which was submitted on February 27 and backed by a 109-paragraph affidavit.
According to him, the document was submitted to provide justification for rejecting the final forfeiture ruling.
Adedeji asked the court to rule that the respondents had proven the properties “were not acquired from proceeds of crime” in addition to overturning the previous interim ruling.
He said that the EFCC’s allegation that the assets were obtained through the proceeds of crime was based only on suspicion.
He stated, “The court deals with evidence, not suspicion.”
He asked the court to disregard the EFCC’s attorney’s position.
Adedeji also contended that in this case, the prosecution used “extrajudicial evidence,” which is often used for cross-examination in criminal trials.
He claimed that without oral testimony, which the court had previously rejected, the court could not fairly decide the case.
He insisted that the properties “were not proceeds of crime,” even if some had been purchased prior to Malami taking office.
Adedeji also filed further affidavits and separate counter-affidavits on behalf of a few other respondents and businesses involved in the case.
He pleaded with the court to reject the motion for forfeiture. (NAN)
