The Federal High Court in Abuja postponed its ruling on the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission’s request to permanently forfeit 57 properties linked to former Attorney-General Abubakar Malami because the court did not sit as scheduled.
Justice Joyce Abdulmalik was expected to deliver the decision on Friday, July 10, 2026. However, proceedings could not continue because the court was not in session. The judge moved the matter to July 15.
Importantly, the available court report does not give a deeper reason for why the court failed to sit. Therefore, claims that the delay resulted from political pressure, legal manoeuvring or administrative interference would be unsupported.
Why the ruling matters
The case centres on 57 properties that the EFCC alleges may have been acquired with proceeds from unlawful activities.
The anti-graft agency wants the court to order the properties’ final forfeiture to the Federal Government. Its lawyer argued that the respondents failed to prove that they acquired the assets through legitimate income.
However, Malami and the other respondents reject that claim.
Their lawyer argued that the EFCC relied mainly on suspicion rather than sufficient evidence. He also maintained that some properties were acquired before Malami entered public office.
Why the court must examine the evidence carefully
A final forfeiture order could permanently transfer ownership of the properties to the government.
Because of that consequence, the court must decide whether the EFCC presented enough admissible evidence to connect the assets to unlawful proceeds.
The respondents also challenged some materials presented by the commission. They argued that evidence requiring witness examination should be tested during a criminal trial rather than accepted without cross-examination.
This dispute places the quality of the evidence at the centre of the case.
What happens next
The court is now expected to deliver its ruling on July 15.
The decision will determine whether the Federal Government can permanently take possession of the properties or whether the earlier interim forfeiture order will be lifted.
Until then, the delay remains procedural. Based on the published report, the only confirmed explanation is that the court did not sit.