The Federal High Court in Abuja, on Tuesday, ordered the remand of Mr Abubakar Malami, SAN, former Attorney-General of the Federation (AGF), and his son, Abubakar Abdulaziz Malami, in Kuje Correctional Centre pending the hearing of their bail application.
Justice Emeka Nwite, in a ruling on the oral bail application made by their lawyer, Joseph Daudu, SAN, also ordered that Hajia Bashir Asabe, an employee of a property firm, should be remanded in Suleja Correctional Centre.
Justice Nwite held that it would be in the interest of justice and fair hearing to allow the prosecution counsel, Ekele Iheanacho, SAN, respond to the earlier bail application filed by the defence.
“I have listened to the submissions of the learner counsel of both divide and also gone through the relevant laws.
“It is not in dispute that an application for bail has been filed by the defendants.
“It is also not in dispute that the bail application has been served on the prosecution.
“It is not in dispute that, that application cannot be withdrawn by the defendants,” he said.
Justice Nwite said that though the court could exercise its discretionary power by granting a bail, he said such had to be made after the prosecution had responded to the bail application earlier filed.
According to the judge, it will amount to an ambush against the prosecution for the court to grant the oral bail application while the prosecution has not responded to the bail application earlier filed by the defendants.
“This will breach the right to fair hearing against the prosecution
“I am of the view that the interest of justice will be met by allowing the prosecution to respond to the bail application filed,” he said.
Justice Nwite, who ordered that Malami and his son be remanded in Kuje Correctional Centre, ordered Asabe to be remanded in Suleja facility pending the hearing of their bail application.
The judge then adjourned the matter until Jan. 2, 2026 for hearing of the bail application.
The News Agency of Nigeria (NAN) reports that the EFCC had, in the charge marked: FHC/ABJ/CR/700/2025, named the ex-minister, Hajia Bashir Asabe and Abubakar Abdulaziz Malami as 1st, 2nd and 3rd defendants respectively in the money laundering case.
The anti-graft agency accused the defendants of carrying out various suspicious transactions and attempting to conceal the unlawful origin of billions of naira through bank accounts and property acquisitions across Abuja, Kano and Kebbi.
They allegedly committed the offences between 2015 and 2025, a period that includes the eight years Malami served as the AGF during the late former President Muhammadu Buhari’s administration.
The commission alleged that Malami, his son, and Asabe conspired to disguise the origin of funds, acquire property indirectly, and retain sums they allegedly knew were proceeds of unlawful activity, in violation of the Money Laundering (Prohibition and Prevention) Acts of 2011 (as amended) and 2022.
Earlier when the matter was called, EFCC’s lawyer, Iheanacho, informed the court that the matter was scheduled for the defendants to take their plea and that he was ready to proceed.
The defence counsel, Daudu, did not oppose the charge being read to the defendants.
The defendants, however, pleaded not guilty to the 16 counts after they were ready to them.
Iheanacho then sought a trial date to present their evidence against the suspects.
“In view of the non-guilty plea of the defendants, may we apply for a trial date for the defendants.
“I know we received an application for bail and we will be seeking your lordship indulgence for a date to respond.
“We got the application yesterday around 3pm. We will be asking for a date to respond,” the EFCC lawyer had said.
But Daudu submitted that though a formal application for bail had been filed, he could equally make an orally application, citing a 1995 case involving Abiola Vs. Federal Republic of Nigeria.
“Having listened to the 16 counts and having read laws on subject of bail, especially matter of Abiola against FRN, 1995, I think it is a proper application to make orally not withstanding the application filed,” he said.
Daudu, while arguing his case, gave details of why the defendants could be admitted on bail through oral submission.
The senior lawyer argued that a written application would only be compulsory where the offence with which they are being charged is a capital offence.
Besides, he said the defendants would need a written application where they would be relying on matters extraneous to the charge filed by the prosecution.
“But where we are relying strictly on the contents and materials filed by the prosecution, then, we can make an oral application,” he said.
Daudu further argued that the offences with which they were being charged are bailable ones.
Citing Section 36(5) of the 1999 Constitution, the lawyer said that the defendants are innocent until proven guilty.
He stated that the defendants, before and during the investigation, did not abscond and that they equally enjoyed administrative bail while under investigation.
“My lord will take note of the fact that the defendants are family unit, headed by a former high ranking officer of the country for eight years,” he said.
Daudu told the court that the ex-minister had been in detention since Dec. 8, Asabe had been in detention since Dec. 22 while Malami’s son had been in detention since Dec. 23.
“The prosecution has this on their record whether I am correct or wrong.
“I think they should be granted bail on liberal terms my lord so that we can concentrate on their trial and expeditiously too as well,” he said.
He said the defendants should be afforded adequate time and facility and that this could not be achieved while in detention.
Daudu reminded that those in office today may not be in office tomorrow, hence, the need to give them the opportunity to defend themselves.
“This is my humble application and I urge my lord to exercise your discretion based on Section 162 of ACJA (Administration of Criminal Justice Act), 2015,” he said.
But Iheanacho vehemently opposed Daudu’s oral application for bail.
The EFCC’s lawyer submitted that the case of Abiola and FRN cited earlier by Daudu was not applicable in the instant case.
“We have provision of Section 162 of ACJA, 2015 my lord which provides for and regulates bail during trial.
“And that provision lists out circumstances which the court shall take into account in exercise of its discretion on whether to grant bail or not my lord,” he said.
According to Iheanacho, those factors can only come into the court through affidavit evidence my lord.
“And to determine whether to grant the application or not to grant, both prosecution and defendant will be given opportunity to state their facts and these facts belong to the witnesses.
“They do not belong to counsel,” he argued.
The lawyer argued that submission of counsel is not an evidence and cannot replace an evidence.
“My lord, this is a court of record and that informed the reason the defendant filed their motion for bail with the expectation that the prosecution will be given the opportunity to respond to same.
“So it will amount to a serious ambush against the prosecution and a kind of springing surprise to the prosecution which this court cannot condone,” he said.
Iheanacho said though the prosecution conceded that the defendants enjoy the presumption of innocent until proven guilty, he, however, argued that presumption alone does not guarantee automatic bail my lord.
“That presumption must be balanced against the interest of justice,” he said.
He added that on the issue that the defendants would not abscond, was an issue of facts that could be properly said via affidavit evidence and not by counsel’s submission no matter how brilliantly presented.
“I concede that the 1st defendant (Malami) held a very high position in this country my lord and as a result, he is expected to live above board my lord.
“But incidentally, that is not any of the factors in granting bail my lord,” he said.
The lawyer argued that the charge before the court bordered on alleged serious economic crime, involving complex financial network.
“And it is a serious matter in this country because it shows Nigeria’s commitment in the fight against corruption.
“Therefore, public interest has to be taken into account so that this court will not be seen as indulging the 1st defendant because of his status and given him a preferential treatment my lord.
“So there is need to balance interst of justice with public interest in a matter of this nature my lord,” he said.
According to Iheanacho, the position held by the 1st defendant rather aggravated the situation rather than mitigating it.
“So we are praying for a short time to respond.
“We are not saying that the defendant will not have their days in court. That is our submission my lord,” he argued.
After listening to the submissions of both lawyers, Justice Nwite stood down the matter for a ruling on the oral bail application.