The Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) has taken action on a property in Abuja linked to former Attorney-General of the Federation, Abubakar Malami (SAN), placing official markings on the building following a court-ordered interim forfeiture.
The move, which has stirred public attention, comes amid an ongoing legal dispute surrounding the ownership and status of the property.
The anti-graft agency said the development was in line with an existing court directive. It stressed that the action was part of routine enforcement procedures carried out when such orders are granted.
Speaking on the matter, EFCC spokesman, Dele Oyewale, explained that the marking of the property was meant to inform the public of its legal status.
He said, “There is nothing illegal in the matter. The attachment or marking of property that is on a forfeiture order is a normal law enforcement action when the court has granted an interim forfeiture.”
Oyewale added that once a court issues a forfeiture order, the commission is empowered to identify and tag the affected property to prevent any form of transaction or interference.
“What I mean by attachment of property is the normal marking of the property to caution members of the public that the property so marked is a forfeited property, whether in interim or final forfeiture.
“So when there is a forfeiture order by the court, the enforcement agency can go ahead and make markings,” he said.
The EFCC also addressed reports suggesting that its operatives stormed or raided the property. Oyewale dismissed the claims, maintaining that the agency only acted within the bounds of the law.
“The commission did not go there to raid anywhere. We are not involved in any such act. So there is nothing illegal about what we have done,” he stated.
The clarification followed the circulation of a viral video showing a tense exchange between Malami and EFCC officials at the location.
In the footage, the former minister was seen confronting the operatives and questioning the legitimacy of their action. He demanded to see the court order backing the move and argued that the document presented did not clearly mention his property.
He insisted that the matter remained before the court and accused the agency of attempting to tarnish his image.
“Where is your court order? The order here is not specific. It didn’t give you a clear directive to come and mark my property… You want to move nationwide to embarrass me? Go ahead, we will meet in court,” Malami said in the video.
An EFCC official at the scene, however, maintained that the commission had the authority to mark any property listed under a forfeiture order, regardless of whether the process was at an interim or final stage.
