UPDATED: Ex-AGF Malami, son, wife to spend New Year’s Day in prison as court postpones bail hearing

The Federal High Court in Abuja on Tuesday ordered the remand of former Attorney General of the Federation (AGF) and Minister of Justice, Abubakar Malami, alongside his wife and son at the Kuje Correctional Centre.

Join the Premium Times WhatsApp Community For Quick Access To News and Happenings Around You.

Open in WhatsApp

Judge Emeka Nwite ordered them to remain in prison till 2 January 2026, which is slated for the hearing of their bail application.

This implies that Mr Malami and his two relatives will cross over to 2026 and spend the New Year’s Day in prison.

Mr Nwite issued the remand order after the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) arraigned the three of them jointly on money laundering charges on Tuesday.

In the 16 counts brought against them, the EFCC accused them of illegitimate acquisitions and concealment of the origins of multi-billion-naira worth of assets, in Abuja, Kano and Kebbi.

Already, EFCC has traced more than N200 billion worth of assets, including a university, hotel, and residential houses, among others, to Mr Malami in the three locations.

Mr Malami, his son, Abubakar Abdulaziz Malami, and his wife, Asabe Bashir, who is also described as an employee of a firm linked to the former minister, Rahamaniyya Properties Ltd, pleaded not guilty to the charges.

Stay Ahead with Premium Times

Add as a preferred source on Google

Bail application

After the defendants took their pleas on Tuesday, the prosecution lawyer, Ekele Iheanacho, a Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN), urged to court to schedule the case for commencement of trial.

He said that although he received the defendants’ bail application on Monday, 29 December, the commission needed time to respond to it.

Responding, defence lawyer Joseph Daudu, also a SAN, told the court that the alleged offence is bailable and that an oral bail application is allowed.

He further told the court that a written bail application is only required where the defence intends to rely on materials supplied by the prosecution. According to him, where the application relies on facts outside the prosecution’s materials, bail can be sought orally.

Mr Daudu maintained that section 162 of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act (ACJA) does not make it compulsory for bail applications to be made in writing and argued that “given the status of the first defendant, as former AGF and the minister of Justice, he can never consider absconding.”

“The first defendant had been in custody since 8 December, while the second and third defendants had been detained since 23 December,” he added.

He cited Abiola v. FRN (1995) in the Nigerian Weekly Law Reports to support his argument and section 36(5) of the Nigerian constitution, which presumes an accused person innocent until proven guilty.

Mr Daudu noted that granting bail would facilitate the speedy conclusion of the trial in the interest of justice and urged the court to grant the application.

He concluded by urging the court to consider that the defendants are members of the same family and should not “be allowed to celebrate the New Year in custody.”

However, Mr Iheanacho opposed the request, arguing that the case is distinguishable from Abiola v. FRN.

He said section 162 of ACJA requires bail applications to be supported by affidavit evidence, stressing that facts for bail determination must come from witnesses and not from submissions by defence counsel.

According to him, “submission of counsel is not evidence and cannot replace it.” He added that since the defence had already filed a written bail application, the prosecution should be given time to respond.

He said granting such time would be in the interest justice, noting that the alleged offence of money laundering is a serious economic crime.

The prosecution lawyer acknowledged the defendants’ right to be presumed innocent but argued that this “does not guarantee automatic bail.”

READ ALSO: UPDATED: Ex-AGF Malami, son, wife to spend New Year’s Day in prison as court postpones bail hearing

The judge, in turning down an oral application, said the “bail application had only been served on the prosecution a day earlier and allowing an oral application at that stage would amount to an ambush.”

He stressed that “the interest of justice will be met” by allowing the prosecution adequate time to respond to the written bail application.

He therefore adjourned the case until 2 January 2026 for the hearing of the bail application.