Former Attorney-General of the Federation, Abubakar Malami (SAN), has accused the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) of forcefully evicting him and his family from their Abuja residence despite an ongoing legal dispute over the property.
Malami made the allegation on Tuesday while addressing journalists at a press conference in Abuja. He claimed that operatives of the anti-graft agency stormed his Maitama home on Monday and returned the following day with additional armed personnel to take full possession of the property.
According to him, the commission acted without obtaining a specific court order authorising eviction or immediate takeover.
“Yesterday, without further recourse to the court, without seeking an order to seal my properties, without seeking an order to evict my family members and me from the property, without seeking a court order for the appointment of a receiver manager, the EFCC came to effect a forceful eviction,” he told reporters.
He said the initial attempt to take over the property was not completed on Monday, prompting a reinforced operation on Tuesday morning.
“They were unable to conclude the process yesterday and reinforced this morning with a lot of personnel that are armed and indeed forcefully took over possession of my family residence,” he added.
The property in question, Malami identified, is located at No. 2, Koronakh Close, off Amazon Street in Maitama, one of Abuja’s high-profile residential districts. He described it as his family home.
The former AGF explained that the EFCC’s action followed an interim forfeiture order granted by a court on January 6, 2026. However, he maintained that the order did not authorise eviction of occupants or immediate enforcement measures such as sealing or physical takeover.
“The most interesting part of the order was that there was no clear directive or instruction that the premises would be taken over forthwith, or perhaps is being sold, or perhaps evicting the occupants,” Malami said.
He further disclosed that he had already challenged the interim forfeiture order at the Federal High Court and that the matter had been adjourned to April 20, 2026.
With the case pending before the court, Malami argued that the EFCC should have refrained from taking steps that could prejudice the proceedings.
“It is only natural, logical and judicial that no party is expected to overreach by taking unilateral steps that would place a court in a situation of purposelessness,” he stated.
Malami strongly criticised what he described as a breach of established legal procedure. According to him, enforcement of court orders is not the responsibility of litigating parties but of designated judicial officers such as bailiffs and sheriffs.
“Execution of court orders and processes is an exclusive function of court bailiffs and sheriffs, and is not in any way the prerogative of a party to the litigation,” he said.
He characterised the alleged eviction as legally unprecedented, insisting that the commission’s actions fell outside the framework of due process as understood within Nigeria’s judicial system.
“What happened by way of forceful eviction of my family members and forceful takeover of my properties is legally and judicially unprecedented in the Nigerian legal system,” he added.
Malami also claimed that no specific eviction order was obtained and that court officials were not present during the operation.
Beyond the legal arguments, the former minister hinted at possible political motivations behind the timing of the enforcement action. He noted that the incident occurred shortly after his release from detention and during a period when he had been receiving significant political visits and messages of support.
“The fact that these things happen at a time when I was receiving tremendous goodwill messages can certainly be a basis for people to insinuate perhaps political persecution,” he said.
However, Malami stopped short of directly accusing the commission or the government of orchestrating a vendetta against him. He acknowledged that the matter is currently before the court and indicated that he would allow the judicial process to run its course.
The former AGF affirmed his intention to pursue legal remedies in response to the alleged eviction. He said he would rely on the courts to determine the legality of the EFCC’s actions.
“For me, the steps are legal, legitimate and judicial, and we will certainly embark on the judicial process to do the needful,” he said.
As of the time of filing this report, efforts to reach his counsel in the asset forfeiture case, J.B. Daudu, for clarification on the status of the property and the next line of action were unsuccessful. Calls placed to him were not answered.
The dispute raises broader questions about the enforcement of interim forfeiture orders in Nigeria’s anti-corruption framework. Interim forfeiture is typically granted pending final determination of ownership or the legality of acquired assets. Legal experts often stress that such orders must be executed strictly in line with procedural safeguards to prevent abuse or premature dispossession.
The EFCC has not yet issued a detailed public response to Malami’s allegations. It remains unclear whether the commission will clarify the legal basis for its actions or respond formally to the claims of procedural irregularity.
For now, the matter appears set to shift back to the courtroom, where the Federal High Court will determine the validity of the interim forfeiture and any subsequent enforcement measures.
As the legal battle unfolds, the case is likely to attract significant public and political attention, given Malami’s former role as Nigeria’s chief law officer and the EFCC’s central position in the country’s anti-corruption efforts.
