By Isaac Aregbesola
Former Attorney General of the Federation and Minister of Justice Abubakar Malami, SAN, has accused the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) of unlawful invasion of his residential and business premises in Abuja on Monday.
This is contained in a statement on Tuesday in Abuja, by Mohammed Doka, Special Assistant on Media, to the former minister.
Malami described the action of the anti-graft agency as condemnable and a disregard to the rule of law.
”This is nothing short of a flagrant disregard to the rule of law, a gross abuse of power, and a dangerous precedent in a constitutional democracy.
”It represents a calculated attempt to harass, intimidate, and embarrass me, evidently on account of my political affiliations,” he said.
According to him, EFCC officials, in the company of heavily armed security personnel, forcefully invaded and took over residences and offices linked to him.
He said that the residences were also marked without presenting any valid or subsisting court order authorising such actions.
He added that two people were taken into forceful custody in the course of the said invasion.
The former attorney general of the federation and minister of justice said that the incident occurred minutes after a solidarity visit by former Vice President Atiku Abubakar to his residence.
He said that in view of this, the development raised serious concerns about the intent, timing, and political undertones of the operation.
He noted that the case instituted against him by the EFCC at the Federal High Court, Abuja Division, before Justice Joyce Abdulmalik (Suit No: FHC/ABJ/CS/20/2026), remained ongoing.
”The Honourable Court has not made any final determination on the issues in dispute, and no order authorising the invasion and marking of the premises was argued and granted,” he said.
He also said that the interim forfeiture order relied upon by the EFCC had elapsed.
”The ex parte order granted on Jan. 6, was expressly time-bound for a period of 14 days, which had already elapsed.
”That order has since lapsed and cannot, under any stretch of the law, justify the EFCC’s actions today,” Malami said.
He said that at the time of the invasion, EFCC operatives were requested to produce a lawful court order authorising their actions, but they could not.
”They failed, refused, and/or neglected to present any such order, underscoring the illegality of their conduct,” he said.
He said the EFCC proceeded in a show of force, to unlawfully occupy, mark, and assert control over his houses and offices in clear violation of due process and established legal procedures.
Meanwhile the EFCC says its decision to mark a property in Abuja linked to the former attorney general of the federation and minister of justice, followed a valid interim forfeiture order issued by a court.
Dele Oyewale, the EFCC Spokesperson, said this against the backdrop of a viral video in circulation accusing the anti-graft agency of illegally marking the former AGF’s property in Abuja.
According to him, the step is in line with standard law enforcement procedures and aimed at notifying the public of the property’s legal status.
”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.”
He explained that such markings were carried out to alert the public that the property was under forfeiture.
Oyewale also dismissed claims that the commission carried out a raid on the property, insisting that officers were only enforcing a court directive.
”The commission did not raid the property. We are not involved in any such act; so there is nothing illegal about what we have done,” he added.
In the video that circulated online, Malami was seen questioning the EFCC operatives and demanding proof of the court order authorising the action.
He argued that the order presented did not specifically mention his property and maintained that the matter remained before the court.
Also an EFCC official in the footage was heard insisting that once a property was under forfeiture, the commission has the authority to mark it. (NAN)
