Malami: NBA Ibadan Chairman explains legal implications of final forfeiture of over 40 properties

Oladunni Toheebat Ayomide

Chairman of the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA), Ibadan Branch, Mr. Ibrahim Lawal, has explained the legal implications of the final forfeiture of more than 40 properties allegedly linked to former Attorney-General of the Federation and Minister of Justice, Abubakar Malami.

Lawal, who spoke during a live interview on TVC News anchored by Abosede Adeniran on Wednesday evening, said the final forfeiture order means that the Federal Government has assumed ownership of the properties located across Abuja, Kano, Kebbi and Kaduna.

The clarification came a few hours after the court ordered the final forfeiture of the properties, which were allegedly acquired through unlawful means.

According to the NBA Ibadan Chairman, Nigerian law provides for the forfeiture of assets believed to have been acquired with proceeds of crime or other unlawful activities.

He explained that once a court makes a final forfeiture order, the affected properties are transferred to the ownership of the Federal Government in accordance with the law.

“Under Nigerian law, property believed to have been acquired through the proceeds of crime becomes the property of the government,” Lawal said.

He noted that Nigeria’s current forfeiture regime represents a significant development in the country’s approach to tackling financial crimes and depriving alleged offenders of the benefits of illicit activities.

According to him, previous legal approaches were largely focused on punishing individuals found guilty of criminal offences, without necessarily addressing or recovering assets allegedly acquired through criminal activities.

He said the current legal framework seeks to address both the alleged offender and the proceeds of the unlawful activities by empowering the authorities to pursue the forfeiture of properties linked to such proceeds.

“The law now ensures that both the offender and the proceeds of crime are dealt with through the forfeiture of such properties to the Federal Government,” he added.

Meanwhile, another lawyer, Mr. Jerry Musa, who spoke during a live interview on News Central, described the proceedings involving the properties as a non-conviction-based civil forfeiture process.

Musa explained that under such proceedings, the government does not necessarily have to secure a prior criminal conviction against the owner of an asset before seeking its forfeiture.

He said the focus of the court in such cases is primarily on the circumstances surrounding the acquisition of the property and whether the funds used to acquire the assets can be traced to legitimate sources.

According to him, the central issue before the court is not simply the question of ownership but whether the person claiming ownership can demonstrate that the funds used to acquire the properties were obtained through legitimate means.

“The issue before the court is not simply ownership. The owner must show the legitimate source of the funds used to acquire the property,” Musa said.

The lawyer’s explanation highlights the distinction between criminal prosecution and civil forfeiture proceedings, where the government seeks to establish a connection between particular assets and proceeds allegedly derived from unlawful activities.

The development has further drawn attention to Nigeria’s legal framework on asset recovery and the government’s efforts to tackle corruption, financial crimes and the acquisition of assets allegedly linked to illicit funds.

Lawal maintained that the final forfeiture order underscores the position of Nigerian law that properties established by the court to have been acquired through illegitimate means may be forfeited to the Federal Government.

The case is expected to generate further public discussion on the application of forfeiture laws, the recovery of alleged proceeds of crime and the balance between asset recovery and the protection of property rights under the Nigerian legal system.