The detention of the immediate past Attorney-General of the Federation (AGF) and Minister of Justice, Abubakar Malami, and two of his relatives, was extended by five days on Friday, after the Federal High Court in Abuja adjourned ruling on their bail application.
Trial judge Emeka Nwite, on Friday, scheduled the bail ruling for 7 January (Wednesday) after a hearing.
|
|
As of Friday morning, Mr Malami, alongside his son, Abdulaziz Malami, and one of his wives, Asabe Bashir, had already spent three nights at the Correctional Centre in Kuje, Abuja, following their arraignment on N8.7 billion money laundering charges on 30 December 2025 (Tuesday).
After their arraignment, the judge remanded them in prison pending the hearing of their bail application scheduled for Friday.
|
|
|
|---|
With the bail ruling now scheduled for 7 January, the trio may have to spend at least eight days altogether in prison if their bail application eventually succeeds.
The ongoing detention period is separate from the time they had spent in EFCC custody before their arraignment.
The family members were brought to court for arraignment on 30 December from EFCC custody. While Mr Malami spent 22 nights in EFCC custody, from the time he was detained on 8 December, his wife and son spent about a week there, between 23 December and when they were arraigned on 30 December.
After Friday’s bail hearing, the Kuje Correctional Centre officials took the defendants back to custody, where they will remain till 7 January, scheduled for ruling.
Bail hearing
During the hearing on Friday, EFCC’s lawyer Ekele Iheanacho, a Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN), opposed the defendants’ bail application. But the defence lawyer Joseph Daudu, also a SAN, argued that the offences were bailable and urged the judge to consider Mr Malami’s status as a former AGF to grant the defendants bail on self-respect and liberal terms.
In his submission, Mr Daudu referenced a ruling delivered earlier on Friday by the same judge granting N500 million bail to the Bauchi State Commissioner for Finance, who is standing trial for money laundering.
Mr Daudu, a former President of the Nigerian Bar Association, argued that the development in that case showed that the offences his clients were accused of are bailable. “According to sections 158 and 162 of the ACJA and your lordship’s ruling this morning, the court has a firm grasp of the issue. I adopt that ruling,” he said.
Mr Daudu stressed that the defendants in the referenced case enjoyed the presumption of innocence under section 36(5) of the Nigerian constitution. “Their rights to liberty and movement remain intact under the 1999 Constitution, and the conditions for curtailing them are not present here,” he said.
He also dismissed EFCC’s claim that Mr Malami might interfere with witnesses.
He described paragraphs 8, 9, and 11 of the counter-affidavit as “mere blanket and generic speculative… tales by moonlight.” He cited precedents to show that speculation alone cannot deny bail.
The defence disputed claims in paragraph 10 of the counter-affidavit that the defendants might jump bail, noting the EFCC had previously granted them an administrative bail. “A party that granted administrative bail to now oppose a competent court’s order; they can grant it, but the court cannot?” he asked.
He accused the EFCC of disobeying a court order granting the defendants a pre-trial bail.
The ruling Mr Daudu referred to relates to a bail granted to Mr Malami by the Federal Capital Territory (FCT) High Court in Abuja on 23 December. The court granted the bail in the same conditions earlier set by the EFCC.
Both parties disagreed over the conditions. Mr Malami maintained that he had already fulfilled the bail conditions before the EFCC allegedly revoked it. But the EFCC denied revoking the bail and argued that the former minister had yet to meet the conditions for pre-trial release.
“The applicant was not arraigned until 30 December,” Mr Daudu said, adding, “yet they (EFCC) disobeyed the order,” he said. He urged the court to grant bail, stressing that “here in court we know only the law.”
Prosecution’s response
Responding to Mr Daudu, the prosecution lawyer, Mr Iheanacho, said the defence failed to contradict the prosecution’s evidence of inherent risks in granting bail to the defendants.
“The law provides that facts not disputed in a counter-affidavit are deemed admitted,” he said.
He claimed that the defence’s withdrawal of the further affidavits earlier in the proceedings weakened the bail application. He said it meant that the prosecution’s claim that the defendants would interfere with witnesses was not contradicted.
Mr Iheanacho said “tampering with witnesses undermines a fair trial” and that “when a defendant shows a willingness to interfere, constraints are necessary.”
On the ex parte bail order that Mr Daudu claimed EFCC disobeyed, Mr Iheanacho said it had limited relevance, stressing that the current trial is independent and the prosecution must have the chance to argue against bail.
“Granting administrative bail during investigation is completely different from during trial because the stages are not the same,” he said.
Hurdle to hearing crossed
EFCC prosecutor, Mr Iheanacho, initially stood against the hearing of the application on Friday, saying he received additional filings from the defence just before proceedings started and would need time to respond to them.
Responding, Mr Daudu maintained that the case was slated for a definite hearing. He added that he was ready for the hearing despite the fact that his team was only served with the prosecution’s counter-affidavit to his clients’ bail application just Friday morning too.
He said he had immediately responded to the prosecution’s counter-affidavit and submitted that the request for further adjournment of the hearing was an attempt by the prosecution to unduly extend the defendants’ detention in prison.
“You have no right to reply again or seek to further delay the matter. It is unfair because they are already in detention,” Mr Daudu said. He then opted not to rely on the newly filed processes again to enable the hearing to proceed.
The prosecution did not oppose, and the judge struck out the further affidavits filed by the defence on Friday.
After the hearing of the bail application, the judge fixed 7 January for ruling.
READ ALSO: EFCC, prison officers clash over courtroom control during Malami’s bail hearing
The charges
In the 16 counts brought against them, the EFCC accused them of money laundering involving N8.7 billion worth of suspicious assets.
The charges accused the defendants of shady acquisitions and concealment of the origins of the 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.
The charges described Mr Malami’s wife, Ms Bashir, as an employee of a firm linked to the former minister, Rahamaniyya Properties Ltd., which is alleged to have played a key role in the alleged money laundering scheme.
The defendants pleaded not guilty to all 16 counts.
EFCC is expected to start calling witnesses after the ruling on bail is delivered.
Discover more from Premium Times Nigeria
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
![Governor Bassey Otu of Cross River State. [PHOTO CREDIT: Twitter page of the governor]](https://i0.wp.com/media.premiumtimesng.com/wp-content/files/2023/08/Bassey-Otu.jpeg?fit=1024%2C807&ssl=1)
