A Federal High Court hearing in Abuja hit a pause as the Malami forfeiture case was delayed, raising questions over EFCC procedure, court vacation rules, and reassignment.
Proceedings at the Federal High Court in Abuja were unexpectedly halted on Tuesday following the absence of a high-profile forfeiture suit from the court’s official cause list.
The case, filed by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC), seeks the confiscation of 57 properties allegedly connected to a former Attorney General of the Federation, Abubakar Malami.
The disruption drew attention to procedural issues surrounding cases heard during judicial vacation periods and the administrative processes required to keep them active.
The stalled hearing relates to the Malami forfeiture case, which had been adjourned to allow the EFCC report compliance with earlier court directives.
Lawyers present in court were taken by surprise when the matter was not listed for hearing, despite being fixed for that date.
This omission effectively prevented the court from taking further action on the suit.
Background to the matter shows that on January 6, Justice Emeka Nwite granted an interim forfeiture order over the disputed assets. The properties, according to court filings, are spread across Abuja, Kebbi, Kano, and Kaduna states.
The ruling followed an ex parte motion brought before the court by the EFCC and argued by its counsel, Ekele Iheanacho, SAN, who urged the court to preserve the assets pending further proceedings.
In granting the interim order, Justice Nwite also directed the anti-graft agency to publish the forfeiture notice in a national daily newspaper.
The publication was meant to alert any individual or corporate body with a legal interest in the affected properties, giving them 14 days to approach the court and explain why the assets should not be permanently forfeited to the Federal Government.
This step is a standard legal safeguard designed to ensure transparency and fair hearing.
The judge had adjourned the case to the most recent sitting specifically for the EFCC to confirm that it complied with the publication requirement.
However, when proceedings began, the Malami forfeiture case was nowhere to be found on the cause list. Lead counsel to the EFCC, Jibrin Okutepa, SAN, promptly drew the court’s attention to the situation.
Addressing the court, Okutepa explained that upon noticing the omission, he contacted the court registrar for clarification.
He was informed that the matter was categorised as a vacation case, a classification that affected how it was scheduled after the court resumed full sittings.
On that basis, the senior advocate urged Justice Nwite to proceed with the hearing, stressing that the matter had been validly adjourned to that date.
Justice Nwite, however, offered a detailed explanation of the court’s internal procedures. He noted that cases heard during the court’s vacation are typically returned to the Chief Judge once the vacation period ends.
The Chief Judge then reassigns such matters to the appropriate courts for continuation.
According to the judge, this administrative step must be completed before any further hearing can take place, regardless of earlier adjournments.
The judge advised the EFCC’s legal team to take up the issue administratively by formally bringing it to the attention of the Chief Judge.
He explained that such action would help fast-track the reassignment process and ensure that the Malami forfeiture case returns to the docket without unnecessary delay.
Justice Nwite added that once the reassignment is done, all parties would be duly notified.
Legal observers say the development highlights the often-overlooked impact of court vacation procedures on high-profile cases.
While vacation sittings are designed to handle urgent matters, they can introduce additional layers of administrative review once normal court activities resume.
In this instance, the pause does not amount to a dismissal or setback on the merits of the EFCC’s claims, but rather a procedural pause.
For the EFCC, the case remains a significant test of its asset recovery mandate, particularly in matters involving senior former public officials.
The commission maintains that the properties in question were acquired through proceeds of unlawful activities, a claim that would be tested if interested parties come forward to challenge the forfeiture.
As it stands, the fate of the disputed assets hinges on when the Chief Judge reassigns the matter and how quickly the court can reconvene to hear compliance reports and any objections.
Until then, the interim forfeiture order remains in force, preserving the status of the properties.
Ultimately, the temporary halt underscores the importance of procedural compliance in complex litigation.
Once reassigned, the Malami forfeiture case is expected to resume, with the court set to determine whether the interim order should be made final or set aside based on responses from interested parties.
The outcome could have broader implications for future forfeiture proceedings and the handling of vacation cases within Nigeria’s judicial system.
About The Author
