The Federal High Court in Abuja has postponed its much-anticipated judgment in the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC)’s bid to secure the final forfeiture of 57 properties allegedly linked to former Attorney-General of the Federation, Abubakar Malami (SAN).

Justice Joyce Abdulmalik, who had earlier scheduled Monday for the delivery of judgment, shifted the ruling to July 10, extending the wait in a case that has drawn significant public attention.

The matter, which appeared as number four on the court’s cause list, did not proceed as expected. No official explanation was provided for the adjournment, although three other cases among the 13 matters listed before the court were also rescheduled.

The EFCC is seeking a final order forfeiting the properties to the Federal Government, arguing that they are reasonably suspected to be proceeds of unlawful activities.

During the last hearing, EFCC counsel, Jibrin Okutepa (SAN), urged the court to grant the application, relying on a motion supported by a 47-paragraph affidavit and 46 exhibits. He maintained that the respondents failed to provide sufficient evidence proving that the properties were lawfully acquired.

According to him, the anti-graft agency had presented extensive documentary evidence and established grounds for the permanent forfeiture of the assets.

However, Malami’s legal team mounted a strong defence against the application. Counsel to the former AGF, Adedayo Adedeji (SAN), argued that the EFCC’s case was built largely on suspicion rather than concrete evidence.

He told the court that Malami had personally deposed to a 109-paragraph affidavit explaining the legitimate sources of the assets and challenging the forfeiture request.

“The court deals with evidence, not suspicion,” Adedeji argued, insisting that the anti-corruption agency had failed to prove that the properties were proceeds of criminal activity.

The senior lawyer further contended that some of the assets in question were acquired before Malami assumed office as Attorney-General, making the allegations against him unsustainable.

He also criticised the EFCC’s reliance on what he described as extra-judicial materials, arguing that such evidence should ordinarily be tested through cross-examination in a criminal trial.

Adedeji urged the court to not only reject the forfeiture application but also set aside the interim forfeiture order previously granted.

Other lawyers representing individuals and companies named in the suit equally opposed the EFCC’s application, asking the court to dismiss the request in the interest of justice.

With both sides maintaining sharply contrasting positions, attention now shifts to July 10 when the court is expected to decide the fate of the disputed properties and bring a crucial chapter of the high-profile legal battle to a close.