Justice Joyce Abdulmalik ruled that the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) had been able to prove that the properties were reasonably suspected to be proceeds of unlawful activities.
Justice Abdulmalik held that Malami had failed to show that the properties were acquired through lawful sources.
Earlier, the judge dismissed several applications, motions on notice and applications to show cause filed by Mr Malami, his family members and some companies linked to the properties, describing them as “wanting in merit.”
She held that the issue before the court was not “who owns the properties, but how legitimate are the funds used to acquire the properties.”
According to the judge, the respondents had “not dislodged the reasonable suspicion that the properties were acquired by unlawful activities.”
Justice Abdulmalik relied on Section 17 of the Advance Fee Fraud and Other Fraud Related Offences Act in granting the final forfeiture order.
The judge, however, vacated the interim forfeiture order in respect of nine other properties sought to be forfeited by the EFCC.
She held that the anti-graft agency was unable to prove that the nine properties located in Kebbi and Kaduna states were obtained through unlawful activities.