The Court of Appeal in Abuja on Thursday reserved ruling in an application filed by former Attorney-General of the Federation, Abubakar Malami, seeking leave to appeal a ruling of the Federal High Court over the forfeiture of properties linked to him.
A three-member panel of the appellate court, led by Justice Abba Mohammed, fixed no date for the ruling but said parties would be notified when it is ready.
Malami, through his counsel, Joseph Daudu (SAN), is challenging a ruling delivered by Justice Joyce Abdulmalik of the Federal High Court in proceedings relating to the forfeiture of 57 properties allegedly traced to unlawful activities.
The Economic and Financial Crimes Commission had secured an interim forfeiture order against the properties earlier this year.
Arguing the application on Thursday, Daudu told the appellate court that the motion before it sought an extension of time to seek leave to appeal, leave to appeal, and an extension of time within which to file the appeal.
He explained that the application arose from the ruling delivered by Justice Abdulmalik in the forfeiture proceedings initiated by the EFCC.
According to him, the application was supported by a four-paragraph affidavit and copies of the ruling being challenged.
Daudu urged the court to grant the application, insisting that the reason for the delay in filing the appeal was valid and largely caused by the time taken to obtain the certified ruling of the lower court.
The senior advocate argued that the respondents’ objection, anchored on an earlier Supreme Court decision, no longer reflected the current legal position.
He said, “The rules of court now require that the ruling sought to be appealed against must be attached to an interlocutory appeal.”
Daudu added that filing such an application without attaching the ruling would render the process incompetent.
He further maintained that the delay complained of was attributable to the court process itself and not to any negligence on the part of the applicant.
The lawyer also faulted the EFCC’s reliance on the Court of Appeal fast-track practice direction on corruption-related matters.
According to him, the anti-graft agency did not raise the issue in its counter-affidavit and could not validly introduce it during oral argument.
Daudu argued that there was nothing unlawful about filing interlocutory appeals, especially where issues of jurisdiction were involved.
He maintained that while courts are encouraged to discourage interlocutory appeals in some circumstances, such appeals remain legally permissible.
Counsel for the EFCC, Jibrin Okutepa (SAN), however, opposed the application and urged the court to dismiss it.
Okutepa described the application as unnecessary and argued that the matter fell squarely within the ambit of the fast-track practice direction applicable to corruption and financial crime cases.
He told the court that the properties in dispute were allegedly acquired fraudulently while Malami served as Attorney-General of the Federation.
The senior lawyer argued that interlocutory appeals in such matters were discouraged because issues intended to be raised could conveniently be addressed during the final determination of the substantive case.
“This has to do with property fraudulently acquired while Malami was AGF,” Okutepa submitted.
He further argued that the applicant failed to show any substantial reason for not filing the appeal within the prescribed time.
Okutepa also referred to the circumstances surrounding the reassignment of the case at the Federal High Court.
He noted that the initial ex parte application by the EFCC was heard by Justice Emeka Nwite, while the ruling being challenged was later delivered by Justice Abdulmalik after the matter changed hands.
According to him, Malami’s position was that the proceedings ought to commence afresh because the earlier ex parte order made by Justice Nwite had elapsed.
The EFCC lawyer urged the appellate court to reject the application and allow the substantive forfeiture proceedings to continue without further delay.
After listening to submissions from both sides, the appellate court reserved ruling.
The forfeiture case stems from an order granted by Justice Nwite of the Federal High Court, Abuja, on January 6, directing the interim forfeiture of 57 properties said to be suspected proceeds of unlawful activities.
The order followed an ex parte application filed by the EFCC.
The court had also directed the commission to publish the interim forfeiture order in a national newspaper to enable any interested person to show cause within 14 days why the properties should not be permanently forfeited to the Federal Government.
Following the court’s vacation, the matter was reassigned to Justice Obiora Egwuatu.
However, Justice Egwuatu later recused himself from the case, citing personal reasons and the interest of justice, after which the matter was reassigned to Justice Abdulmalik.
The PUNCH