The Federal Capital Territory (FCT) High Court has strongly upheld the detention of former Attorney-General of the Federation (AGF) and Minister of Justice, Abubakar Malami, SAN, affirming that his custody by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) is lawful and dismissing his bid for bail.
Delivering judgment on Thursday, 19th, 2025, Justice Babangida Hassan rejected Malami’s application for bail, ruling that the anti-graft agency’s detention of the ex-minister was valid under existing law. The ruling was confirmed in a statement issued by the EFCC’s spokesperson, Dele Oyewale.
Justice Hassan, said that provisions in the Administration of Criminal Justice Act (ACJA) permit detention under the circumstances and that the remand order previously issued by a coordinate FCT High Court remained effective. “Asking this court to grant this application is tantamount to inviting the court to sit as an appellate court over an application made by a court of coordinate jurisdiction, which the court has no power to do,” the judge said.
Malami has been in EFCC custody since December 8, 2025, after failing to meet conditions attached to his administrative bail. According to the anti-graft agency, the former minister is being investigated over 18 alleged offences, including alleged abuse of office, money laundering and terrorism financing.
Malami’s legal team, led by Barrister Mohammed Sheriff Elhassan, has challenged his continued detention as unlawful and a violation of his constitutional rights, arguing that the bail conditions imposed on him were oppressive and unattainable. They have maintained that Malami voluntarily cooperated with the EFCC, attending multiple sessions of questioning and complying with the terms of his initial bail.
In a separate statement, Malami dismissed claims that he failed to meet bail requirements, describing the allegations against him as “misleading” and asserting that he was not given a reasonable opportunity to perfect the conditions. His media office said that certain conditions, such as the requirement to produce high-ranking civil servant sureties, were unrealistic and impeded by constitutional concerns.
The former AGF has publicly accused EFCC Chairman Olanipekun Olukoyede of bias, citing a longstanding relationship between the chairman and the Justice Ayo Salami Judicial Commission of Inquiry, which investigated aspects of EFCC conduct during Malami’s tenure. Malami’s camp argues that this history creates a conflict of interest that should preclude Olukoyede from leading the probe.
Therefore, Malami’s office claims the investigation has been marked by what it calls “illegal detention, media harassment and procedural abuse,” and insists that only a court — not an anti-graft agency acting unilaterally — should determine his fate unless lawful charges are filed.
The African Democratic Congress (ADC) in Kebbi State, of which Malami is a prominent figure, has condemned his detention as a breach of the rule of law and called for his immediate release, insisting that no formal charge has been laid against him. The party’s state chairman described the situation as intimidation and urged strict adherence to constitutional safeguards.
Conversely, critics of Malami, including Mr. Josef Onoh, former presidential spokesman, have argued that Malami’s rhetoric against the EFCC rings hollow given past allegations that under his watch as AGF there were instances of disregarding court orders and politically sensitive prosecutions. Onoh urged the former minister to cooperate with the investigation rather than focus on public attacks against anti-corruption institutions.
As proceedings continue, Malami remains in EFCC custody. The commission maintains his detention is lawful pending investigations and possible arraignment, while his legal team presses for judicial intervention to secure his release and compel adherence to due process.
Observers say the outcome of this high-profile matter could have significant implications for Nigeria’s anti-corruption framework and the broader debate over the independence and limits of prosecutorial powers in politically charged cases.
