I Got N985m as Gifts, N374m Salary — Malami Tells Court

Former Attorney-General of the Federation and Minister of Justice, Abubakar Malami, has told a Federal High Court in Abuja that he earned ₦374 million from salaries and received ₦958 million as gifts from personal friends, as part of his total income while in public service.

Malami made the disclosure while seeking to vacate an interim court order that directed the seizure of 57 properties allegedly linked to him by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC).

The revelation was contained in a motion on notice filed on his behalf by his lawyer, Joseph Daudu, at the Federal High Court. The application specifically asked the court to set aside the interim forfeiture order on three of the properties among the 57 earlier seized for forfeiture to the Federal Government.

According to the motion, Malami stated that he had fully and transparently declared all his sources of income in his asset declaration submitted to the Code of Conduct Bureau (CCB). His lawyer told the court that the former Attorney-General’s wealth was lawfully acquired from salaries, businesses, asset disposals, loans, gifts, and book proceeds.

The income sources listed in the court documents include:

₦374,630,900 earned from salaries, estacodes, severance allowances, and other official earnings.

₦574,073,000 generated from the disposal of assets.

₦10,017,382,684 recorded as turnover from private business ventures.

₦2,522,000,000 listed as loans extended to businesses.

₦958,000,000 received as traditional gifts from personal friends.

₦509,880,000 realised from the launch and public presentation of his book titled “Contemporary Issues on Nigerian Law and Practice, Thorny Terrains in Traversing the Nigerian Justice Sector: My Travails and Triumphs.”

Malami argued that the interim forfeiture order was wrongly granted, insisting that the EFCC failed to establish that the properties were proceeds of unlawful activities. He urged the court to vacate the order, maintaining that his assets were acquired through legitimate and verifiable means.

The court is expected to hear arguments from both parties before ruling on whether the interim forfeiture order will be lifted or sustained.