A Federal High Court sitting in Maitama, Abuja, has further remanded former Attorney General of the Federation and Minister of Justice, Abubakar Malami, his son, Abdulaziz Malami, and his wife, Asabe, at the Kuje Correctional Centre, pending ruling on their bail applications.
Justice Emeka Nwite, on Friday, January 2, 2026, adjourned the matter to January 7, 2026, for a decision on the bail requests.
The trio is being prosecuted by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) over alleged money laundering offences involving ₦8.71 billion. 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, prosecution counsel, Ekele Iheanacho, SAN, informed the court that the case was scheduled for hearing of the defendants’ bail applications. However, defence counsel, J.B. Daudu, SAN, said the prosecution had only just served the defence with a counter-affidavit in court, necessitating time to study and respond.
Daudu subsequently filed further affidavits, each running into about 28 to 30 paragraphs, challenging the continued detention of the defendants. In response, Iheanacho requested additional time to review the new processes, noting that the prosecution had also been served with replies on points of law.
The development triggered exchanges between both senior counsels, with the defence arguing against what it described as unnecessary prolongation of detention, while the prosecution maintained that it needed adequate time to study the voluminous filings in the interest of justice.
Following the exchanges and with no objection, 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 Malami be released on self-recognisance, while his son and wife be granted bail on liberal terms. He argued that the offences were bailable and that the defendants were entitled to the presumption of innocence.
Daudu dismissed claims of potential interference with witnesses as speculative, adding that the EFCC had earlier granted the defendants administrative bail during investigation.
Opposing the applications, Iheanacho told the court that the EFCC filed three separate counter-affidavits on January 2, 2026, deposed to by an operative of the commission. He argued that allegations of interference with witnesses and evidence had not been controverted and urged the court to refuse bail, citing relevant provisions of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act (ACJA).
He further contended that administrative bail during investigation differs from bail after charges have been filed, stressing that presumption of innocence does not automatically entitle an accused person to bail.
In brief remarks, Justice Nwite acknowledged the court’s heavy workload during the vacation period but assured that justice would be dispensed promptly.
The judge thereafter adjourned the matter to January 7, 2026, for ruling on the bail applications.
