The Federal High Court has fixed April 21 to hear an application by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) seeking the final forfeiture of 57 assets allegedly linked to Abubakar Malami, SAN, former Attorney-General of the Federation.

Justice Joyce Abdulmalik also scheduled the same date to hear applications by Malami and other interested parties who have been ordered to show cause why the properties should not be permanently forfeited to the Federal Government.

The assets were earlier placed under interim forfeiture by a sister court presided over by Justice Emeka Nwite on January 6, following an ex-parte motion (FHC/ABJ/CS/20/2026) filed by EFCC counsel, Ekele Iheanacho, SAN.

The court had directed the EFCC to publish the order in a national daily, inviting interested parties to respond within 14 days.

The multi-billion-naira properties are located across Abuja, Kebbi, Kano, and Kaduna States, including temporary and permanent sites of Rayhaan University, Kebbi.

The interim order was granted while Justice Nwite sat as vacation judge during the Christmas/New Year break.

After the vacation, the matter was reassigned to Justice Obiora Egwuatu, who later recused himself for personal reasons, leading to its reassignment to Justice Abdulmalik.

Malami subsequently challenged the interim forfeiture. In a motion on notice dated January 27 and filed by his legal team led by Joseph Daudu, SAN, the former AGF alleged suppression of material facts and misrepresentation by the EFCC.

He urged the court to vacate the order, arguing that the suit violated his fundamental rights, including the presumption of innocence and the right to own property, and risked conflicting outcomes and duplicative litigation.

When proceedings resumed on Friday, Daudu asked the court to direct the EFCC to recommence the matter afresh, citing developments in a related criminal charge.

EFCC counsel Jibrin Okutepa, SAN, opposed the request, contending that the law does not require a de novo process in civil forfeiture proceedings once an ex-parte order has validly commenced the case.

Justice Abdulmalik agreed with the EFCC, holding that the ex-parte order remained extant and that the de novo principle was inapplicable.

The judge ordered that all applications, including the EFCC’s final forfeiture motion and about 25 motions by interested parties , be heard together, noting that any application lacking merit would be struck out.

The court directed all parties to file and exchange processes ahead of the adjourned date and therea