The alleged N8.7 billion money laundering case involving former Attorney-General of the Federation, Abubakar Malami (SAN), and two others, alongside an asset forfeiture suit against him, have been reassigned to a new judge at the Federal High Court in Abuja.

The Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) had filed the money laundering charges against Malami, his son Abdulaziz, and Hajia Bashir Asabe, an employee of Rahamaniyya Properties Limited, a company allegedly linked to the former minister.

In a separate forfeiture proceeding, the EFCC is seeking the interim forfeiture of 57 properties said to have been unlawfully acquired by Malami.

The defendants were arraigned on 30 December before Justice Emeka Nwite, who also granted an ex parte application on 6 January for the interim forfeiture of the properties.

Following the end of the court’s vacation, the cases were returned to the Chief Judge for reassignment in line with court procedure.

Both matters have now been assigned to Justice Obiora Egwuatu, who fixed 12 February for hearing in the forfeiture case and 16 February for arraignment in the alleged money laundering charge.

According to the EFCC, the defendants conspired to disguise the origin of about N8.7 billion, indirectly acquire properties and retain funds suspected to be proceeds of unlawful activity, contrary to the Money Laundering (Prohibition and Prevention) Acts of 2011 (as amended) and 2022.

Malami has, however, challenged the interim forfeiture order, asking the court to set it aside and release three of the affected properties located in Kano and Abuja.

Through his counsel, Joseph Daudu (SAN), the former AGF argued that the properties were lawfully acquired and duly declared in his asset declaration forms submitted to the Code of Conduct Bureau in 2019 and 2023.

He maintained that the assets were not linked to any unlawful activity and that the interim forfeiture order was obtained through misrepresentation and suppression of material facts.

Malami further contended that the proceedings violated his constitutional rights to property and presumption of innocence.

The court is expected to consider the arguments when proceedings resume later in February.