By Correspondent in Abuja.
The Federal High Court in Abuja on Tuesday ordered the remand of former Attorney-General of the Federation (AGF), Mr Abubakar Malami, SAN, and his son, Abubakar Abdulaziz Malami, in the Kuje Correctional Centre pending the hearing of their bail application.
Justice Emeka Nwite also ordered that Hajia Bashir Asabe, an employee of a property firm and a co-defendant in the case, be remanded in the Suleja Correctional Centre.
The ruling followed an oral bail application by defence counsel, Joseph Daudu, SAN. Justice Nwite held that, in the interest of justice and fair hearing, the prosecution must be given the opportunity to respond to the bail application already filed by the defence.
“I have listened to the submissions of learned counsel on both sides and examined the relevant laws. It is not in dispute that an application for bail has been filed by the defendants and served on the prosecution. It is also not in dispute that the application cannot be withdrawn,” the judge said.
Justice Nwite noted that while the court has discretionary powers to grant bail, such discretion must be exercised only after the prosecution has responded to the pending bail application.
“To grant an oral bail application in the absence of the prosecution’s response to the written application would amount to an ambush and a breach of the right to fair hearing,” he ruled.
Consequently, the judge ordered that Malami and his son be remanded in Kuje, while Asabe be held in Suleja, and adjourned the matter to January 2, 2026, for hearing of the bail application.
Our correspondent reports that the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC), in a charge marked FHC/ABJ/CR/700/2025, listed Malami, Asabe and Abubakar Abdulaziz Malami as the 1st, 2nd and 3rd defendants, respectively.
The anti-graft agency alleged that the defendants engaged in suspicious financial transactions and attempted to conceal the illicit origin of billions of naira through multiple bank accounts and property acquisitions in Abuja, Kano and Kebbi states.
The offences were allegedly committed between 2015 and 2025, a period that covers the eight years Malami served as AGF under the administration of former President Muhammadu Buhari.
According to the EFCC, the defendants conspired to disguise the origin of funds, indirectly acquire properties and retain sums they allegedly knew to be proceeds of unlawful activities, contrary to the Money Laundering (Prohibition and Prevention) Acts of 2011 (as amended) and 2022.
Earlier, when the matter was called, EFCC counsel, Ekele Iheanacho, SAN, informed the court that the case was slated for arraignment and that the prosecution was ready to proceed. The defence did not oppose the reading of the charge.
The defendants pleaded not guilty to all 16 counts after the charge was read to them.
Following the plea, Iheanacho applied for a trial date and sought time to respond to the bail application, noting that the prosecution received it only the previous day.
Daudu, however, argued that notwithstanding the written application, he was entitled to make an oral application for bail, relying on the 1995 Supreme Court decision in Abiola v. Federal Republic of Nigeria. He contended that a written bail application was mandatory only in capital offences or where reliance was placed on extraneous matters.
He further submitted that the offences were bailable, stressing that the defendants had cooperated throughout the investigation, did not abscond and were previously granted administrative bail.
Citing Section 36(5) of the 1999 Constitution, Daudu argued that the defendants were presumed innocent until proven guilty and urged the court to grant bail on liberal terms to enable them prepare adequately for trial.
Opposing the application, Iheanacho argued that the Abiola case was inapplicable and that Section 162 of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act (ACJA), 2015, clearly regulates bail during trial. He maintained that the factors for granting bail must be established through affidavit evidence, not oral submissions by counsel.
He warned that granting bail without hearing the prosecution’s response would amount to ambushing the prosecution and undermine fair hearing.
The EFCC lawyer further submitted that the case involved serious economic crimes with complex financial networks and that public interest must be weighed alongside the presumption of innocence.
After hearing arguments from both sides, Justice Nwite stood down the matter before delivering his ruling, which resulted in the remand order.
Edited by Dada Ahmed.
