The Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) is prosecuting the defendants over alleged money laundering offences amounting to ₦8,713,923,759.49.
A Federal High Court sitting in Maitama, Abuja, on Friday adjourned ruling on the bail applications filed by the former Attorney-General of the Federation and Minister of Justice, Abubakar Malami (SAN), his son, Abubakar Abdulaziz Malami, and his wife, Hajia Bashir Asabe, to January 7, 2026.
Justice Emeka Nwite, who presided over the matter, also ordered that the three defendants be further remanded at the Kuje Correctional Centre, Abuja, pending the ruling.
The Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) is prosecuting the defendants over alleged money laundering offences amounting to ₦8,713,923,759.49.
They are facing a 16-count charge bordering on conspiracy, procuring, disguising, concealing and laundering proceeds of unlawful activities, contrary to the Money Laundering (Prevention and Prohibition) Act, 2022.
At the resumed hearing on Friday, prosecution counsel, Ekele Iheanacho, SAN, informed the court that the matter was scheduled for hearing of the defendants’ bail applications.
However, defence counsel, J.B. Daudu, SAN, told the court that the prosecution had just served them with a counter-affidavit in court, necessitating time to study and respond to the processes.
He said the defence subsequently filed further affidavits of between 28 and 30 paragraphs, challenging the continued detention of the defendants.
In response, Iheanacho told the court that the prosecution had just been served with the defence’s further affidavits and a reply on points of law, and therefore needed time to study the documents.
“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,” he said.
Daudu objected, arguing that the matter had been adjourned to Friday with a working day in between, insisting there was no justification for further delay.
“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,” he said, adding that professional courtesy should prevail and that the defence was ready to proceed.
Responding, Iheanacho maintained that the request for time was reasonable.
“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,” he said.
Following the exchanges and with no objection from either side, the court struck out one application and granted another at the instance of the defence.
Moving the bail applications, Daudu urged the court to admit all three defendants to bail, praying that the first defendant be granted bail on self-recognisance, while the second and third defendants be admitted on liberal terms.
He explained that the first defendant’s application was supported by a 36-paragraph affidavit deposed to by his son, Nuzain Malami, on December 29, 2025, with six annexures and a written address.
The application for the second defendant, he said, was supported by a 28-paragraph affidavit deposed to by her daughter, Farida Abdullahi Usman, with exhibits attached, while the third defendant’s application was supported by a 39-paragraph affidavit deposed to by his brother.
Daudu argued that the offences were bailable and that the defendants were presumed innocent until proven guilty.
He dismissed claims of interference with witnesses as speculative, noting that the defendants had earlier been granted administrative bail by the EFCC.
“It is contradictory for a party that granted administrative bail to now argue otherwise,” he submitted, urging the court to exercise its discretion in favour of the defendants.
Opposing the applications, Iheanacho told the court that the EFCC filed three separate counter-affidavits on January 2, 2026, deposed to by Adebayo Daniel, an operative of the commission, and supported by written addresses.
“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,” he said, citing judicial authorities to argue that undisputed facts are deemed admitted.
He contended that interference with witnesses strikes at the root of fair trial and urged the court to apply relevant provisions of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act (ACJA) in refusing bail.
He also argued that administrative bail during investigation differs from bail after charges have been filed.
“Presumption of innocence does not give an automatic ticket to bail,” the prosecution added.
In his remarks, Justice Nwite noted the heavy workload before the court during the vacation period but assured the parties that justice would be dispensed promptly.
“I have many high-profile cases during this vacation period, but justice will be served in the shortest possible time,” he said.
The judge subsequently adjourned the matter to January 7, 2026, for ruling on the bail applications.