The Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) has instituted a 16-count money laundering charge against former Attorney-General of the Federation (AGF), Abubakar Malami (SAN), his son, Abdulaziz Malami, and an employee of Rahamaniyya Properties Limited, Hajia Bashir Asabe.
The charges, filed before a Federal High Court in Abuja, allege that Malami laundered approximately ₦9 billion through a complex network of transactions and property acquisitions across Abuja, Kebbi, Kano, and other states. The alleged offences form part of a three-series case brought by the anti-graft agency.
According to the EFCC, the defendants are required to account for about 30 properties estimated to be worth ₦212.8 billion, most of which were allegedly acquired during Malami’s tenure as AGF between 2015 and 2023. The commission disclosed that it may invoke the Non-Conviction Based Asset Forfeiture provisions of its Establishment Act to recover some of the assets, allowing interested parties a 14-day period to show cause why the properties should not be forfeited to the Federal Government.
The charge sheet alleges that Malami and his associates used Metropolitan Auto Tech Limited to conceal the origin of illicit funds. One of the counts claims that between July 2022 and June 2025, over ₦1.01 billion was laundered through a Sterling Bank account linked to the company. Another count accuses Malami and his son of retaining ₦600 million as cash collateral for a ₦500 million loan granted to Rayhaan Hotels Limited in March 2021.
Further allegations involve the indirect acquisition of several high-value properties through Rahamaniyya Properties Limited, including a luxury duplex in Maitama valued at ₦500 million, as well as properties in Asokoro, Gwarimpa, Jabi, and Kano. The EFCC also alleged that over ₦1.3 billion was funneled through accounts operated by Meethaq Hotels Limited to disguise the unlawful origin of funds.
The commission maintained that the transactions exhibited a consistent pattern of concealment and conversion of proceeds suspected to be derived from unlawful activities, stressing that the defendants “reasonably ought to have known” the nature of the funds involved.
The EFCC stated that if the defendants fail to satisfactorily account for the assets, forfeiture proceedings would be pursued in line with the law.
