A Federal High Court sitting in Abuja and presided over by Justice Emeka Nwite, on Friday, January 2, 2025, extended the remand order of former Attorney General of the Federation and Minister of Justice, Abubakar Malami, SAN, his wife, Hajia Bashir Asabe and his son, Abubakar Abdulaziz Malami in the Kuje Correctional Centre, Abuja, till January 7, 2026, for ruling on their bail applications.
The Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC), is prosecuting the defendants over alleged money laundering offences to the tune of N8,713,923,759.49 (Eight Billion, Seven Hundred and Thirteen Million, Nine Hundred and Twenty-Three Thousand, Seven Hundred and Fifty-Nine Naira, Forty-Nine Kobo).
The trio were docked on a 16-count charge bordering on conspiracy, procuring, disguising, concealing and laundering proceeds of unlawful activities, contrary to the provisions of the Money Laundering (Prevention and Prohibition) Act, 2022.
At the resumed hearing on Friday, the prosecution counsel, Ekele Iheanacho, SAN, told the court that the matter was slated for the hearing of the bail applications filed by the defendants.
However, counsel to the defendants, Mr Joseph Daudu, SAN, told the court that the prosecution just served them with a counter affidavit in the court and therefore needed to go through it and respond accordingly.
After going through it, Daudu filed a counter affidavit of about 28 to 30 paragraphs challenging why the defendants should no longer be in detention.
But, Iheanacho informed the court that they had just been served with a counter affidavit and sought time to study the processes.
According to Iheanacho; “We were served with a counter affidavit and sought time to go through the processes, my lord. We have now been served with a further affidavit, each of them with about 28 to 30 paragraphs, as well as a reply on points of law. I have not gone through what they have filed and may need time to do so”.
On the other hand, counsel to the defendants said; “My lord, the matter was adjourned to today and there is a working day in between. I don’t know why they didn’t serve us. There’s no point for the prosecution to be prolonging the detention. “They have no right to reply again. If he needs 15 to 20 minutes, the court can grant him. Professional courtesy should prevail. We are ready to proceed”.
However, the prosecuting counsel said; “My lord, as much as it is not our intention for the defendants to stay long in incarceration without basis, and as a senior member of the Bar, I have tremendous respect for my learned friend. However, I have just been served with three processes of about 28 to 30 paragraphs. It is better to make haste slowly”.
Following the exchanges between counsels and with no objection, the court struck out an application and granted another upon defence counsel’s prayer.
While moving the bail applications, Daudu, SAN, urged the court to admit the 1st, 2nd and 3rd defendants to bail, and particularly urged the court to grant the first defendant bail on self-recognisance, while the second and third defendants be granted bail on liberal terms.
Daudu said; “My lord, as it relates to the first defendant, the immediate past Attorney General of the Federation and Minister of Justice, the application is supported by a 36-paragraph affidavit deposed to by his son, Nuzain Malami, on December 29, 2025, with six annexures marked Exhibits A1, B, C and E, and a written address”.
Daudu also said the application for the second defendant was supported by a 28-paragraph affidavit deposed to by her daughter, Farida Abdullahi Usman, with Exhibits A and B attached, alongside a written address dated December 29, 2025 while the third defendant’s application was supported by a 39-paragraph affidavit deposed to by his brother, Nuzain Malami.
The defence counsel further argued that the offences were bailable, and that the defendants were presumed innocent until proven guilty, thus dismissed allegations of interference with witnesses as speculative, stressing that the defendants had earlier been granted administrative bail by the EFCC.
According to Daudu; “It is contradictory for a party that granted administrative bail to now argue otherwise. I urge the court to exercise its discretion in favour of the defendants”.
While opposing the applications, Ihenacho, SAN, said the EFCC filed three separate counter affidavits against the defendants on January 2, 2026, deposed to by Adebayo Daniel, an operative of the Commission, and supported by written addresses.
Ihenacho said; “My noble lord, the averments in the counter affidavits, particularly on suborning of witnesses and interference with evidence by the first and second defendants, have not been controverted. Undisputed facts are deemed admitted”.
The prosecuting counsel contended that interference with witnesses strikes at the root of fair trial and urged the court to consider relevant provisions of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act (ACJA) in refusing bail.
Addressing the issue of an earlier administrative bail, the prosecution argued that pre-trial bail during investigation differs from bail during trial after charges have been filed, saying; “Presumption of innocence does not give an automatic ticket to bail. The court should refuse the applications”.
After listening to both counsels, Justice Nwite said that despite the workload before the court during the vacation period, justice would be served promptly.
Justice Nwite said; “I have many high-profile cases during this vacation period, but justice will be served in the shortest possible time,” he said and thereafter adjourned matter till January 7, 2026, for ruling on the bail applications.
