The Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) on Tuesday arraigned Abubakar Malami, former Attorney-General of the Federation and Minister of Justice, alongside Bashir Asabe, his wife and Abubakar Malami, their son, before the Federal High Court in Maitama, Abuja, over alleged money laundering involving N8.7 billion.
The trio appeared before Emeka Nwite (Justice) on a 16-count charge bordering on conspiracy, procuring, disguising, concealing and laundering proceeds of unlawful activities, contrary to provisions of the Money Laundering (Prevention and Prohibition) Act, 2022.
According to a statement by Dele Oyewale, EFCC’s Spokesman on Tuesday, the alleged offences involve a total sum of N8,713,923,759.49, said to have been laundered through a web of corporate entities and bank accounts between 2022 and 2025.
At the commencement of proceedings, Ekele Iheanacho, prosecuting counsel, informed the court that the matter was slated for arraignment of the defendants on a charge dated December 23, 2025.
“My Lord, this matter is for the arraignment of the defendants on a 16-count charge. We humbly pray that the charge be read to them and their pleas taken,” Iheanacho said.
J.B. Daudu, Counsel to the defendants, did not object, prompting Justice Nwite to order that the charge be read in open court.
“One of the counts alleged that Malami and his son, between July 2022 and June 2025, procured Metropolitan Auto Tech Limited to conceal the unlawful origin of N1.014 billion lodged in a Sterling Bank account, when they reasonably ought to have known that the funds were proceeds of unlawful activities.
Another count accused Malami, his wife and son of conspiring in September 2024 to disguise the unlawful origin of N1.049 billion allegedly paid through the Union Bank account of Meethaq Hotels Limited, Jabi, between November 2022 and September 2024.
The charge further alleged that Malami and his son indirectly took control of N1.36 billion paid through the Union Bank savings account of Meethaq Hotels Limited between November 2022 and October 2025, knowing or having reasonable grounds to suspect that the funds were proceeds of unlawful activities.
Iheanacho told the court that the prosecution was ready to proceed to trial and requested a trial date. He disclosed that the EFCC had been served with a bail application by the defence a day earlier and asked for time to respond.
In response, defence counsel, Daudu, urged the court to grant bail to the defendants orally, arguing that the offences charged were bailable.
“My Lord, having listened carefully to the 16-count charge, this is a proper case for an oral application for bail,” Daudu said, relying on the decision in Abiola v. FRN. He argued that Section 216 of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act (ACJA) does not make a written application mandatory.
The prosecution opposed the oral bail application, urging the court to discountenance it.
“My Lord, we oppose the oral application for bail. The case of Abiola v. FRN relied upon by learned silk is inapplicable to the circumstances of this case,” Iheanacho submitted.
He argued that bail applications must be supported by affidavit evidence, stressing that oral submissions by counsel could not substitute for evidence.
“This is a court of record. Submissions of counsel, no matter how brilliant, do not amount to evidence and cannot replace affidavit evidence,” he said, adding that granting bail orally would amount to ambushing the prosecution.
Iheanacho also urged the court to consider public interest, noting that the case involved serious economic crimes and complex financial transactions.
“The charge before this Honourable Court borders on grave economic crimes involving complex financial networks. Public interest must be taken into account, and the high office previously occupied by the first defendant does not entitle him to any preferential treatment,” he argued.
Inwite held that the prosecution must be given an adequate opportunity to respond to the bail application.
“Having listened to the submissions of learned counsel, the prosecution must be allowed sufficient time to respond,” the judge ruled.
He ordered that the defendants be remanded at the Kuje Correctional Centre and adjourned the matter to January 2, 2026, for hearing of the bail application.
FOLLOW US ON:
FACEBOOK
TWITTER
PINTEREST
TIKTOK
YOUTUBE
LINKEDIN
TUMBLR
INSTAGRAM
