Tag: Court

  • Court gives EFCC go-ahead to temporarily freeze N30.7m linked to alleged NNPC’s fraud

    Court gives EFCC go-ahead to temporarily freeze N30.7m linked to alleged NNPC’s fraud

     

    The Federal High Court in Abuja has granted an application filed by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) to temporarily forfeit the sum of N30.7 million linked to the alleged fraud perpetrated in the Nigerian National Petroleum Corporation (NNPC) to the Federal Government.

    Justice Emeka Nwite, in a ruling on the ex-parte motion moved by EFCC’s lawyer, Emenike Mgbemele, held that the application was meritorious and accordingly granted.

    Justice Nwite ordered that the interim order of forfeiture be published in a national daily for interested persons to show cause within 14 days why the funds should not be permanently forfeited to the Federal Government.

    The judge then adjourned the matter until Jan. 22 for report of compliance.

    The News Agency of Nigeria (NAN) recalls that NNPC was changed to Nigerian National Petroleum Company Limited (NNPCL) on July 19, 2022 to reflect a commercially focused energy company under late President Muhammadu Buhari as enshrined in the provisions of the Petroleum Industry Act (PIA) 2021.

    The EFCC had, in the suit marked: FHC/ABJ/CS/2775/2025, sought two reliefs.

    The motion ex-parte, dated Dec. 19, 2025, was filed on Dec. 23, 2025 by Ekele Iheanacho, SAN, but moved on Jan. 2 by Mgbemele.

    One of the commission’s prayers is an interim order of the court forfeiting to the Federal Government of Nigeria the sum of N30, 700, 000.00 as raised in the manager’s cheques listed in the schedule, which it said, are reasonably suspected to be proceeds of unlawful activities.

    Given three grounds, the lawyer argued that the court had the statutory powers under the provision of Section 17 of the Advance Fee Fraud and Other Fraud Related Offences Act, 2006 to grant the reliefs being sought.

    Mgbemele said it was a non-conviction-based asset forfeiture proceeding.

    According to him, the funds sought to be attached and forfeited are reasonably suspected to be proceeds of unlawful activities.

    In the schedule, the lawyer prayed that the funds lodged in four installments of N10 million each and N700, 000 in EFCC’s Recovery Account with United Bank for Africa (UBA)’s account number: 9058700029 with manager’s cheque name: M/C Draft Outstanding Account, be forfeited to the Federal Government.

    An EFCC’s investigator, Bilkisu Abubakar, in the affidavit deposed to in support of the motion ex-parte, said she was assigned to investigate fraudulent activities of some high profile officials of the NNPC as well as other criminal petitions brought to the commission.

    According to the officer, upon receipt of intelligence report, my team carried out several investigation activities which include but not limited to making inquiries and receiving financial records from commercial banks that featured in the intelligence.

    Abubakar said it also included writing and receiving response from the various agencies like Corporate Affairs Commission, inviting and interviewing individuals who featured in the investigation.

    “That I know as a fact and verily believe the findings of the investigation which are as follows:

    “That in the cause of investigation and analysing some of the documents received from the bank, the name of Mr Adamu Yakubu, a Bureau De Change (BDC) operator, featured prominently.”

    She said on Sept. 2, 2025, Mr Yakubu, whose name featured in the cause of investigation, was invited and he volunteered his statement.

    “That Mr Yakubu submitted a ledger to the commission evidencing records of his transactions wherein the details of customers and the amount of dollars sold by them are recorded.

    “That upon analysing the entering in the ledger submitted by Mr Yakubu, it was revealed that over N4, 000, 000, 000.00 (Four Billion Naira) was transferred to the accounts of different individuals and companies on the instruction of one Mr Ibrahim Sani, a staff of Federal Inland Revenue Services (FIRS).”

    The investigator said it was discovered that the balance of N30.7 million sought to be forfeited was still in possession of Yakubu from the funds which he claimed was given to him by Mr Ibrahim Sani.

    “That on the 15th day of September 2025, Mr Ibrahim Sani, a staff of FIRS, whose name appeared on the ledger and who Mr Yakubu claimed owned the N30, 700, OOO (Thirty Million, Seven Hundred Thousand Naira Only) was invited and he volunteered his statement.”

    Abubakar averred that Ibrahim gave statement on how he had been using Yakubu, the BDC operator, to be sending monies to different individuals and companies.

    “That Mr Ibrahim equally confirmed how he usually deposit huge amount of money (Dollars) with Mr Yakubu who in turn sends its naira equivalent to individuals and companies accounts provided by him.

    “That Mr Ibrahim neither ascertained nor verified the source of these monies which he has been depositing with Mr Yakubu for onward transfer to other people which are reasonably suspected to be proceeds of unlawful activities.”

    The investigator said Ibrahim, however, denied ownership of the N30.7 million found in Yakubu’s account as at the time of making his statement.

    In his statement, Ibrahim was said to have stated that Yakubu was not holding any of his money as at Sept. 15, 2025.

    The EFCC operative said both Yakubu and Ibrahim denied ownership of the said N30.7 million found in the account of the former (Yakubu).

    “That Mr Yakubu has raised four different managers’ cheques in the name of the EFCC Recovery Account in favour of the Federal Government of Nigeria.

    “Copies of the managers’ cheques are attached and marked as Exhibits EFCC 4A, 4B, 4C and 4D respectively.

    “That I know as a fact and verily believe that the source of the funds sought to be forfeited in the account of Mr Yakubu is proceeds of unlawful activities.”

    Abubakar said the court had the discretionary power to grant the application in the interest of justice.

    The officer, who said the order being sought was in interim and that nobody would be prejudiced by its grant, said it was in the interest of justice to grant the application.

     

  • Alleged $9.7m terrorism financing: Court rejects Bauchi Finance commissioner, others’ bail plea

    Alleged $9.7m terrorism financing: Court rejects Bauchi Finance commissioner, others’ bail plea

     

     

    The Federal High Court in Abuja, on Monday, declined to grant a bail application filed by Yakubu Adamu, Commissioner of Finance, Bauchi State, and his co-defendants who are facing alleged $9.7 million terrorism financing.

    Justice Emeka Nwite, in a ruling, held that the offences with which the defendants are being charged threatened national security and public safety.

    Justice Nwite further held that terrorism related offences threatened social order and pre-trial release could endanger the public, hence, such bail cannot be granted.

    The judge, however, made an order for accelerated hearing of the matter.

    “I am not unmindful of the constitutional provision of Section 36(5) which provides that every person who is charged with criminal offence shall be presumed innocent until he is proven guilty.

    “But I must not hesitate to state that the said constitutional provision is not absolutely right.

    “In the consideration of application for bail, all factors have to be considered,” he said.

    Citing a 2001 case involving Bamaiyi and the State, the judge said the apex court held that “it is proper to consider the nature of the offence, the nature of the evidence in support of it and the severity of the punishment which conviction will entail.”

    He said the court took these critical factors as to availability to stand trial into consideration, hence, “these are not matters that should be glossed over.”

    Justice Nwite said: “I cannot say more than this erudite jurist.

    “Our criminal justice system has its stipulations and safeguards for the prosecutor, the accused and the victim.

    “In the proper operation of that system, it can be said that it is in the interest of the society and with those safeguards that if an application for bail pending trial, there is a good reason to believe or strongly agreed that the accused will not jump bail, thereby making himself available to stand his trial and /or will not interfere with witnesses thereby constituting an obstacle in the way of justice, the court will be acting within the undoubted discretion to grant bail.

    “I have carefully considered the affidavit evidence available before me in this point in time.

    “And I have also considered the proof of evidence, especially the statement of Dan Lawan Abdulmumuni and other prosecution witnesses together with grave threat to national security and public safety this case pose.

    “And I have also taking cognizance that terrorism related offences threatened social order and pre-trial release could endanger the public.

    “In my view, the prosecution/respondent has succeeded in raising a reasonable presumption of criminal responsibility on the part of the applicants (Adamu and co-defendants).

    “In view of the foregoing, I am of the humble view and I so hold that interest of justice will be met by giving the matter accelerated hearing.

    “Consequently, the application is hereby refused,” the judge ruled.

    Justice Nwite adjourned the matter until Jan. 13 for commencement of trial.

    The News Agency of Nigeria (NAN) reports that Adamu and his co-defendants were remanded in Kuje Correctional Centre following their arraignment on a 10-count charge on Dec. 31, 2025, and the judge fixed today for ruling on their bail applications.

    Adamu, the 1st defendant, was arraigned alongside Balarabe Abdullahi Ilelah, Aminu Mohammed Bose and Kabiru Yahaya Mohammed, who are 2nd to 4th defendants respectively and Bauchi State civil servants.

    The defendants, however, pleaded not guilty to all the counts preferred against them by the anti-graft agency.

    The charge, marked: FHC/ABJ/CR/705/2025, was dated and filed Dec. 30 by EFCC’s lawyer, Samuel Chime.

    In count one, Adamu, Sirajo Jaja (while being Accountant-General of Bauchi State, now at large}, Samaila Irmiya Liman (now at large}, Balarabe Ilelah, Aminu Bose and Kabiru Mohammed (all being civil servants and signatories to Bauchi State Government’s accounts and/or payment instruments) were alleged to have committed the offence sometime between Jan. 2024 and May 2024.

    They were alleged to have conspired to provide funds in the aggregate sum of 2,300,000.000 U.S. dollars in cash for the benefit of Bello Bodejo and persons associated with him, pursuant to approvals granted by Gov. Bala Mohammed of Bauchi State.

    The said funds were alleged to be used, in whole or in part, to finance a terrorist or terrorist group.

    The offence is contrary to Section 26(1) and punishable under Section 21(2)(a) of the Terrorism (Prevention and Prohibition) Act, 2022.

    In count three, Adamu, Jaja (now at large), Liman (now at large), Ilelah, Bose, Mohammed (all being civil servants and signatories to Bauchi State Government’s accounts and/or payment instruments) were alleged to have, sometime between Jan. 2024 and May 2024, committed the offence.

    They were accused of involving in an arrangement which resulted in the sum of about 500,000.00 U.S. dollars being delivered in cash to Bello Bodejo and persons associated with him for the purpose of terrorism and for the benefit of a proscribed terrorist group pursuant to approvals granted by Gov. Bala Mohammed.

    The offence is contrary to Section 21(3)(b) and punishable under Section 21(4)(a) of the Terrorism (Prevention and Prohibition) Act, 2022.

    Count four accused the defendants, including Jaja and Liman (who are at large) to have conspired to disguise the origin of the 2, 300, 000. 00 U.S. dollars, being Bauchi State Government’s funds, routed through Bureau de Change (BDC) operators and other nominees and converting same to U.S. dollars, for the benefit of Bello Bodejo and persons associated with him.

    It said this was pursuant to approvals granted by Gov. Mohammed, having reasonable grounds to know that the said funds formed part of proceeds of an unlawful act.

    The offence is contrary to Section 21(a) and punishable under Section 18(3) of the Money Laundering (Prevention and Prohibition) Act, 2022.

    In count eight, the defendants, including Jaja and Liman (who are at large), were alleged to have, sometime in the year 2024, conspired to disguise the origin of the sum of about 6, 950, 000. 00 US dollars for the benefit of Yakubu Adamu, the Finance Commissioner, being proceeds of unlawful activity routed from Bauchi State Government’s funds through the BDC operators.

    The offence is contrary to Section 21(a) and punishable under Section 18(3) of the Money Laundering (Prevention and Prohibition) Act, 2022, among other counts.

    Alhaji Bello Bodejo is the President, the Miyettti Allah Kautal Hore.

    Adamu, the 1st defendant, alongside a firm, Ayab Agro Products and Freight Company Ltd, is also facing another money laundering charge involving N4.6 billion before Justice Nwite.

    He was, however, granted a N500 million bail with two sureties who must be owners of property within Maitama, Asokoro or Gwarimpa on Friday.

    In the six-count charge, Adamu was alleged to have committed the offence while acting as the Branch Manager of Polaris Bank Ltd, Bauchi, sometime between June 2023 to December 2023

    The defendants, alongside others, were alleged to have facilitated and agreed to the conversion, concealment and use of funds in the sum of about N4,650,000,000.00 availed by Polaris Bank under the guise of financing the supply of motorcycles to Bauchi State Government through Emmanuel Asomugha General Enterprises.

    However, they were alleged not to have supplied the motorcycles.

  • Court fixes Jan. 7 for ruling on Malami, wife, son’s bail plea

    Court fixes Jan. 7 for ruling on Malami, wife, son’s bail plea

     

    The Federal High Court in Abuja, on Friday, fixed Jan. 7 for a ruling on the bail applications filed by Mr Abubakar Malami, SAN, former Attorney-General of the Federation (AGF); his son, Abubakar Abdulaziz and wife, Bashir Asabe.

    Justice Emeka Nwite fixed the date after counsel for the defence, Joseph Daudu, SAN, and the EFCC’s lawyer, Ekele Iheanacho, SAN, adopted their processes and presented their arguments for and against the case.

    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.

    Details later

  • Court admits Bauchi Finance commissioner to N500m bail with 2 sureties

    Court admits Bauchi Finance commissioner to N500m bail with 2 sureties

     

    The Federal High Court in Abuja, on Friday, admitted Yakubu Adamu, Commissioner of Finance, Bauchi State, to a N500 million bail with two sureties in the like sum.

    Justice Emeka Nwite, who ordered that the two sureties must be land owners within Maitama, Asokoro or Gwarimpa District of Abuja, said the property documents shall be verify by the court registry.

    He directed that the sureties must depose to affidavit of means.

    The judge said that the defendant and the sureties shall deposit their international passports with the court registrar and must not travel out of the country except with the leave of the court.

    He also held that they shall deposit two passport photographs with the court registrar.

    Justice Nwite, who ordered that Adamu should be remanded in Kuje Correctional Centre pending the perfection of his bail conditions, adjourned the matter until Jan. 20 for commencement of trial.

    The judge, in a ruling, held that the court was minded to exercise its discretionary power in favour of Adamu since the prosecution had no strong reason that the defendant would jump bail or interfere with the trial.

    Justice Nwite held that the power to grant bail must be exercised judicially and judiciously, hence, the need for the defendant to be admitted to bail.

    The News Agency of Nigeria (NAN) reports that the EFCC had, in the charge marked: FHC/ABJ/CR/694/2025, named Adamu and a firm, Ayab Agro Products and Freight Company Ltd, as 1st and 2nd defendants in the money laundering case involving about N4.6 billion.

    The charge is dated and filed on Dec. 19 by EFCC’s lawyer, Samuel Chime of the Legal and Prosecution Department.

    In count one, Adamu, while acting as the Branch Manager of Polaris Bank Ltd, Bauchi, alongside Ishaku Mohammed Aliyu, Managing Director of Makayye Investment Resources Ltd (now at large) and Muntaka Mohammed Duguri (now at large), were alleged to have conspired to commit the offence, sometime between June 2023 to December 2023.

    They were alleged to have facilitated and agreed to the conversion, transfer, concealment and use of funds in the sum of about N4,650,000,000.00 (Four Billion, Six Hundred and Fifty Million Naira) availed by Polaris Bank under the guise of financing the supply of motorcycles to Bauchi State Governmeni through Emmanuel Asomugha General Enterprises.

    “The motorcycles were not supplied, and you thereby committed an offence contrary to Section 21(a) and punishable under Section 21 of the Money Laundering (Prevention and Prohibition) Act, 2022,” the count read in part.

    Count six accused Adamu, Aliyu and Duguri of retaining and causing the transfer of proceeds of an unlawful act to nominees and third parties, by causing parts of the funds connected with the Polaris Bank facility to be paid and circulated through third-party accounts sometime in 2023.

    It further alleged that the transfer included the one made through I.S. Makayye Investment Resources Ltd and the transfer of #165, 900,000.00 to Ayab Agro Products and Freight Company Ltd.

    The funds were said to formed part of proceeds of an unlawful act.

    The offence is contrary to Section 20(a) and punishable under Section 20 of the Money Laundering (Prevention and Prohibition) Act, 2022, among other counts.

    The defendants were arraigned on Dec. 30, 2025, but pleaded not guilty to the six-count charge.

    The judge then ordered Adamu’s remand pending the ruling on his bail application which was argued same day.

    NAN reports that Adamu and three other co-defendants, who are Bauchi State’s workers, are also facing another criminal charge bordering on alleged terrorism financing to the tune of $9.7 million before Justice Nwite.

  • RULE OF LAW, FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION, AND THE SENSELESS MOB ATTACK ON DR. DON PEDRO OBASEKI: AN OPEN LETTER TO MR. JOHN AIKPOKPO-MARTINS

     

     

    By Sylvester Udemezue

    Dear esteemed learned senior, Mr. Aikpokpo-Martins, I write this open letter in a spirit of professional respect, civic responsibility, and principled concern, following your public reaction to the assault on Don Pedro Obaseki by a group of youths in Edo State. Given your consistent self-identification as a human-rights activist, public-interest advocate, and promoter of the rule of law in Nigeria, your intervention in this matter understandably carries weight. For the sake of fairness, transparency, and proper context, it is important to reproduce your statement in full, exactly as published, so that readers may judge its content for themselves.

    *FULL EXTRACT OF YOUR STATEMENT*

    _”*Yes, this is democracy. However, that does not give anyone, particularly an Edo man, the right to attempt to ridicule and desecrate our centuries-old traditions simply because there is freedom of expression. We must respect our traditions, our throne and the essence that make us the Edo people that we are. We can’t and must not allow renegades to foist strange and unbecoming bravado shamelessness on us: we are Edo and we respect traditions and elders. Let those who have ears hear. Who do anyhow may see anyhow. Everything may be permissible, but not everything is beneficial. You may not agree with me, but I have no apologies for anyone. Nonsense”*_

    It is against this statement, issued in the immediate aftermath of a violent physical assault, that my humble letter proceeds.

    *VIOLENCE AS THE CONTEXT, Not THE ABSTRACTION*

    Your statement appears to advance four central propositions:

    (1). That democracy and freedom of expression do not permit ridicule or “desecration” of Edo traditions and the Benin throne. Unfortunately, dear Sir, you failed to educate your readers on how (if at all) Dr Don Pedro Obaseki had desecrated the Edo tradition to warrant the public embarrassment and jungle justice, mob action against him.

    (2). That such perceived disrespect warrants collective resistance by “Edo people”;

    (3). That dissenters may be described as “renegades” deserving social sanction; and

    (4). That you owe no one any apologies for the position you took.

    At a purely cultural or moral level, these views may resonate emotionally with some audiences. However, when examined through a constitutional and rule-of-law lens, particularly in the shadow of the recent physical assault against Dr Don Pedro Obaseki, they raise serious concerns. Most notably, your statement did not expressly condemn the violence already inflicted against Dr Don Pedro Obaseki. In moments of civic volatility, especially following the mob action, silence or rhetorical deflection by a lawyer and rights advocate such as you are, is not neutral. It risks being read as moral validation of illegality. The Supreme Court of Nigeria has repeatedly warned against such outcomes. In *GOVERNOR OF LAGOS STATE v. OJUKWU,* the Court stated that the rule of law presupposes that the state is subject to the law with the consequence that the government should be conducted within the framework of recognised rules and principles which restrict discretionary power. This principle applies with equal force to private citizens and groups. This, violence, whether by the state or by mobs, is an assault on the rule of law itself.

    *TRADITION, RESPECT, AND THE LIMITS OF LAWFUL ENFORCEMENT*

    No serious lawyer or constitutionalist disputes the importance of culture, tradition, or revered institutions. Nigerian law recognises and protects Nigerian culture and tradition. But the law also draws a firm line between respect and coercion. Culture and Tradition do not license intimidation, illegality, violence or jungle justice. Reverence does not justify violence. Respect compelled by fear ceases to be respect at all. In *GARBA V. FEDERAL CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION,* the Supreme Court condemned self-help in unequivocal terms, making it clear that no grievance, however strongly felt, permits individuals to take the law into their own hands.
    Language such as “we must not allow” and the branding of dissenters as “renegades” risks collapsing the crucial distinction between lawful cultural disapproval and unlawful enforcement. That collapse is precisely what the rule of law exists to prevent.

    *FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION: LIMITED BY LAW, NOT BY MOBS*

    You correctly acknowledge that Nigeria is a democracy. That acknowledgment carries constitutional consequences. *Section 39 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999* guarantees freedom of expression. That freedom is not absolute, but its limits are defined by law, not by collective outrage, threats, mob action or jungle justice. Where expression crosses lawful boundaries, the response must be institutional (complaint, investigation, adjudication, and remedy) not street justice. As courts have long recognised, freedom of expression is tested most severely by speech that offends, disturbs, or provokes, not by speech that comforts.

    *THE MISSING QUESTION OF ALLEGED OFFENCE*

    According to the report by TheCable and corroborated by Premium Times, PM News and all other media outlets in Nigeria, Dr. Don Pedro Obaseki explained after the attack that the alleged “offence” he was accused of was that he made a public statement while in London in which he said *“may Edo people live long and prosper”* instead of saying *”may the Oba live long and prosper.”* His attackers claimed that his remark was disrespectful toward the Oba of Benin, a charge he described as the purported reason for his abduction, beating, stripping, and public humiliation. Till date, no one has either (a) disputed or countered Dr Don Pedro Obaseki’s account or otherwise (b). disclosed in what way or ways Dr Don Pedro Obaseki had ridiculed, desecrated or disrespected the person or throne of the Oba of Benin or the Edo culture and tradition

    Meanwhile, dear learned senior, Mr Aikpokpo-Martins, Sir, a striking omission in your public statement is a foundational legal inquiry: *what offence did Dr. Don Pedro Obaseki commit?* To date, no specific criminal, civil, or even customary violation has been clearly articulated by you to answer this question. Yet lawlessness, mob justice and physical punishment were publicly rationalised by you. This inversion (mob justice as punishment without allegation, investigation, or adjudication) is the antithesis of justice. Even assuming, purely for argument, that an offence had been committed (a claim yet to be substantiated), mob violence is not, and has never been, a lawful response under any civilised legal order.

    *THE HIGHER BURDEN OF PUBLIC-INTEREST ADVOCACY*

    Those who claim the mantle of public-interest advocacy bear a heavier burden than ordinary commentators. Their words shape norms, legitimise conduct, and either strengthen or weaken public confidence in lawful processes. The rule of law is not situational. It does not expand or contract based on cultural sentiment, political loyalty, or identity alignment. Selective outrage is not public-interest advocacy; it is opportunism, and opportunism, when clothed in the language of rights, damages genuine human-rights discourse. As the Supreme Court reaffirmed in *MILITARY GOVERNOR OF LAGOS STATE v. OJUKWU,* society cannot survive where might replaces right: whether that might comes from the state or from the street. In summary , your statement is an endorsement (direct or indirect) of the mob and jungle justice action meted out against Dr. Obaseki; the statement failed to condemn the physical attack that had already occurred; employs language capable of legitimising mob action, even if indirectly; collapses the distinction between cultural disapproval and lawful sanction, and substitutes collective emotion for individual accountability and due process. In volatile circumstances, such rhetoric, especially from a lawyer and self-styled human-rights activist and public-Interest advocate, is not neutral. It carries normative force and risks being read as moral validation of violence already committed.

    *A MOMENT FOR REFLECTION AND RE-ANCHORING*

    The public disavowal of the attack by the Oba of Benin, and His Majesty’s express caution against mob action, provided an opportunity for collective reflection and recommitment to lawful conduct. It reaffirmed that tradition and legality are not adversaries, but partners in a constitutional order.
    Nigeria’s fragile democracy cannot endure the normalisation of vigilantism, especially when such vigilantism is cloaked in cultural rhetoric or moral certainty. I write, therefore, not in hostility, but in the hope that this moment invites a return to first principles: that violence against persons is unlawful; that expression is restrained by law, not mobs; and that lawyers, above all, have a duty to de-escalate conflict, not rationalise it.

    (
    Best professional regards, Sir.
    Long live the rule of law!
    Yours respectfully,
    Sylvester Udemezue (Udems)
    Proctor, The Reality Ministry of Truth, Law, and Justice (TRM).
    08021365545.
    udems@therealityministry.ngo.
    (01 January 2026))

  • Alleged money laundering: Ex-AGF, Malami, arrives in court

    Alleged money laundering: Ex-AGF, Malami, arrives in court

     

     

     

    Mr Abubakar Malami, SAN, the former Attorney-General of the Federation and Minister of Justice, on Tuesday, arrived at Court 8 of the Federal High Court in Abuja for his arraignment on alleged money laundering.

    Malami arrived at the court at about 8:55am in company of operatives of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC).

    The News Agency of Nigeria (NAN) earlier reported that the EFCC will be arraigning the ex-minister alongside his son, Abubakar Malami, and Bashir Asabe, an employee of a firm linked to the former minister, Rahamaniyya Properties Ltd, on a 16-count charge.

    The trio will be arraigned before Justice Emeka Nwite.

    However, as at the time of filing this report, the court is yet to begin sitting.

    The anti-graft agency, in the charge marked: FHC/ABJ/CR/700/2025, 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.

    In count one, the EFCC alleged that between July 2022 and June 2025, Malami and his son directed Metropolitan Auto Tech Limited to conceal over N1 billion (N1,014,848,500) in a Sterling Bank account, knowing the funds were proceeds of unlawful activity.

    Count two alleged that between Sept. 2020 and Feb. 2021, the duo allegedly concealed more than N600 million (N600,013,460.40) through the same company.

    In count three, the commission alleged that in March 2021, Malami and his son retained N600 million as cash collateral for a N500 million Sterling Bank loan to Rayhaan Hotels Ltd, despite knowing the funds were illicit.

    Count four alleged that in Nov. 2022, Mr Malami, his son, and Asabe disguised N500 million used to purchase a luxury duplex in Maitama, Abuja.

    In count five, the EFCC claimed that between Nov. 2022 and Sept. 2024, the trio conspired to conceal N1,049,173,926.13 paid through Meethaq Hotels Ltd’s Union Bank account.

    Count six accused them that between Nov. 2022 and Oct. 2025, Malami and his son allegedly took control of N1,362,887,872.96 from the same account, knowing it was illicit.

    Count seven alleged that in Nov. to Dec. 2018, Malami and Asabe concealed N700 million used to purchase No. 3 Onitsha Crescent, Garki, Abuja (Hamonia Hotels Ltd).

    In count eight, between Sept. and Dec. 2020, the duo and Asabe allegedly concealed N850 million to buy a property in Jabi District, Abuja (Meethaq Hotels Ltd).

    Count nine stated that in Feb. 2018, Malami and Hajia Bashir acquired No. 3 Rhine Street, Maitama, Abuja, for N430 million, allegedly from unlawful sources.

    In count 10, the pair allegedly concealed N210 million in Feb. 2018 to purchase a property in Asokoro District, Abuja.

    Count 11 alleged that between March and June 2021, they concealed N325 million used to acquire No. 1241B Asokoro District, Abuja.

    In count 12, the EFCC alleged that between Nov. 2015 and Jan. 2016, the duo concealed N120 million used to purchase No. 27 Efab Estate, Gwarimpa, Abuja.

    Count 13 alleged that in Nov. 2022, tye ex-AGF, his son, and Asabe conspired to hide funds used to acquire a luxury duplex at Amazon Street, Maitama, Abuja.

    In count 14, between Dec. 2016 and April 2022, Malami, Asabe, and others allegedly “conspired to acquire additional properties” for Malami with proceeds of unlawful activity.

    Count 15 alleged that between June 2023 and Jan. 2023, Malami allegedly concealed “N537 million used to purchase multiple properties across Abuja, Kebbi, and Kano.”

    In count 16, the EFCC alleged that between Oct. 2018 and Dec. 2021, Malami concealed “N415 million used to acquire several properties in Abuja, Kebbi, and Kano.”

    The EFCC said it planned o call several witnesses, including commission staff, bank representatives, Bureau de Change operators and other financial experts.

    Key witnesses include Folarin Dare, Chinedu Eneanya, Sani Lukeman, Abdulrahman Musa Basheer, Jamilu Mohammed, and representatives of Zenith Bank Plc and Sterling Bank Plc.

    Folarin Dare, Chinedu Eneanya, and Sani Lukeman are expected to testify on how the EFCC received intelligence and petitions of alleged monumental corruption against the former minister.

    Abdulrahman Musa Basheer is to provide evidence on Rahamaniyya Properties Ltd’s role in allegedly purchasing property for Malami.

  • Licence revocation: Court refuses Aso Savings, Union Homes’ plea against CBN, NDIC

     

    The Federal High Court in Abuja on Monday, declined to grant an application seeking to stop the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN) and Nigeria Deposit Insurance Cooperation (NDIC) from taking further actions over the recent revocation of licences of two mortgage financial institutions.

    The two institutions are Aso Savings and Loans Plc and Union Homes Savings and Loans Plc by the CBN.

    Justice Emeka Nwite, in a ruling on the plaintiffs’ ex-parte motion moved by their lawyer, Joseph Silas, rather held that the interest of justice would be better met by putting the defendants on notice.

    “I have listened to the submission of the counsel for the plaintiff/applicant and I have gone through the affidavit evidence, the exhibit including the written address.

    “I am of the opinion and I so hold that the interest of justice will be met by putting the defendants on notice.

    “I hereby ordered that the defendant be put on notice to come and show cause while the relief should not be granted,” the judge ruled.

    Justice Nwite, who sits as vacation judge, adjourned the matter until Jan. 5, 2026 for the defendants to show cause.

    The News Agency of Nigeria reports that Aso Savings, Union Homes, Ridhwan Hamza and Ismaila Adamu are 1st to 4th plaintiffs respectively in the motion ex-parte marked: FHC/ABJ/CS/2776/2025.

    The plaintiffs had sued the CBN and NDIC and 1st and 2nd defendants.

    In the motion dated Dec. 22 but filed Dec. 23 by Silas, they sought two reliefs.

    “An order of this honourable court restraining the defendants/respondents from taking further steps on the purported revocation of the operational licence of the 1st and 2nd plaintiffs, pending the hearing and determination of the motion on notice.

    “An order of this honourable court barring the defendants/respondents from enforcing their unlawful decision in any way, form or manner, against the 1st and 2nd plaintiffs/applicants, pending the hearing and determination of the motion on notice.”

    Given four-ground argument, the lawyer argued that the CBN did not follow the condition precedent to the invocation of its power to revoke the operating licence of the 1st and 2nd plaintiffs/applicants.

    Silas submitted that the NDIC also had, without allowing the two mortgage institutions to exhaust their rights of action, moved to curtail such rights by attempting to take over the 1st and 2nd plaintiffs/applicants.

    “That if the defendants/respondents are not restrained, they will impose upon the plaintiffs/applicants their unlawful decisions in an irreversible way.

    “That it is necessary to restrain the defendants/respondents from taking any other step in the interest of justice,” the lawyer said.

    In the affidavit in support of the motion ex-parte, Ridhwan Hamza, an Aso Savings Shareholder and the 3rd plaintiff in the suit, acknowledged that the institutions had operational challenges which was within the knowledge of the CBN.

    He averred that the CBN, without carrying out any measure to intervene on the failures of the plaintiffs, gave Aso Savings an ultimatum to meet its minimum capital requirement “by ensuring that all share reconstruction activities are concluded in a manner that fully address the capital shortfall not later than Aug. 31, 2025.”

    Hamza said: “I know that notwithstanding the positive updates made to the 1st defendant/respondent by the plaintiffs/applicants, on Dec. 16, 2025 in a press release titled, ‘Revocation of the Operational Licenses of Aso Savings and Loans Plc and Union Homes Savings and Loans Ple.

    ” The first defendant/respondent, relying on Section 12 of BOFIA 2020 and Section7.3 of its Revised Guidelines for Mortgage Banks, revoked the license of the plaintiffs/applicants.

    “I know that the 1st defendant/respondent grounded its decision on:

    “Failure to meet the minimum paid-up share capital requirement for the category of the bank licence granted to the plaintiffs/applicants

    “Having insufficient assets to meet its liabilities.

    “Being critically undercapitalised with a capital adequacy ratio below the prudential minimum ratio as prescribed by the 1st defendant/respondent; and

    “Failure to comply with several directives and obligations imposed upon the plaintiffs/applicants by the 1st defendant/respondent.”

    He, however, said that the CBN was aware of all the steps and progress made by the Aso Savings in raising its minimum capital requirement, with absolute success.

    He said CBN did not act in public interest when it made the press release revoking the operational license of the two institutions, without following the requirement of Section 34 (4) of the Banks and Other Financial Institutions Act, 2020.

    According to him, the action of the 1st defendant/respondent was arbitrary, rash unreasonable and runs contrary to public policy of developing the Nigerian economy, creating jobs and encouraging investments.

    Hamza said the NDIC had sent out messages to Aso Savings’ customers “asking them to fill out an online claims form against the plaintiffs/applicants, even as the law allows the plaintiffs/applicants a window of 30 days to challenge the actions of the 1st defendant/respondent.

    “I know that the steps taken by the 2nd defendant/respondent is aimed at extinguishing the right of the plaintiffs/applicants to challenge the actions of the 1st defendant/respondent by immediately commencing liquidation process.

    “I know that the plaintiffs/applicants have constitutional rights to be heard fairly and to challenge the actions of the defendants/respondents.”

    He said that the defendants would not be prejudiced by the granting of the application and that it was just, equitable and within the law that the application be granted.

    NAN had, on Dec. 16, reported the revocation of the operating licences of Aso Savings and Loans Plc and Union Homes Savings and Loans Plc by the CBN.

  • Court declines to stop Petroleum minister, others from allocating oil fields

    Court declines to stop Petroleum minister, others from allocating oil fields

     

    The Federal High Court in Abuja has refused to grant an application seeking to stop Mr Heineken Lokpobiri, Minister of State for Petroleum Resources (Oil), and others from allocating some oil fields.

    Justice Emeka Nwite, in a ruling on an ex-parte motion filed by Hi-Rev Oil Limited and Hi-Rev Exploration and Production Ltd but moved by their lawyer, Ambrose Unaeze, rather ordered that the respondents be put on notice.

    “The respondents are hereby ordered by this honourable court to show cause why the application should not be granted,” Justice Nwite ruled.

    Justice Nwite, a vacation judge, adjourned the matter until Jan. 5 for the respondents to show cause.

    The News Agency of Nigeria (NAN) reports that the 2nd and 3rd respondents in the ex-parte motion, marked: FHC/ABJ/CS/2678/2025, are the Attorney-General of Federation (AGF) and Nigeria Upstream Petroleum Regulatory Commission (NUPRC).

    The motion, dated and filed on Dec. 11 by a team of lawyers led by Unaeze, sought a relief.

    The oil and gas companies are seeking an order of interim injunction restraining the defendants or whomsoever is acting on their behest from selling, assigning or allocating the Yorla South (Petroleum Prospecting Licence (PPL) 2A32 – OML 11) located in Rivers.

    The order is to also restrain the defendants from allocating Akiapiri (PPL 2A48 – OML 25) located in Bayelsa; Diebu Creek East (OML 32) also located in Bayelsa and Idiok (PPL 2A41 – OML 67) located in Akwa Ibom, “same being direct replacements for Utapate Oil Field (formerly part of OML 13) and OPL 2002, previously allocated to the plaintiff but was later withdrawn by the defendants, pending the hearing of the interlocutory application in this suit.”

    Giving four grounds why their application should be granted, the lawyer said the companies were previously allocated the Utapate Oil Field (formerly part of OML 13) and OPL 2002, but were unreasonably withdrawn by the Federal Government.

    He said parties had a settlement agreement for the replacement of the Utapate Oil Field, which was accepted or adopted and it became consent judgement.

    Unaeze stated that the firms had taken substantial steps and offered consideration in respect of the grant of the licence to operate OPL and licence to establish a petroleum refinery.

    He argued that the companies’ legal right is being threatened by the defendants, pursuant to the threat to sell or allocate the oil fields at Yorla South, Akiapiri, Diebu Creek East, and Idiok to third parties via the defendants’ offer to the public for round bid, hence, the need for the interim order.

    In the affidavit in support of the motion, the companies’ Director, Chief Felix Ezeamama, averred that in 2007, the firms won the bid for OPL 2002, but the exercise was suspended following a lawsuit filed by Shell Petroleum Development Company of Nigeria Limited (SPDC), the former operator of OML 13 as at then.

    “However, the plaintiffs subsequently filed an action against the defendants over lack of access to the oil field in Suit No. FHC/CS/1077/2007, which led to an out of court settlement in 2015 between the plaintiffs and the defendants,” he said.

    Ezeamama said this led to the adoption of the terms of settlement as a consent judgment.

    According to him, the settlement agreement confirmed and declared the plaintiffs as the rightful winner of OPL 2002 and provided for the issuance of a 50,000 BPD modular refinery license at Iko Community, Eastern Obolo L.G.A., Akwa Ibom State.

    “And following this act, the DPR (now NUPRC) issued the plaintiffs with both the award letter (Offer of Oil Prospecting License – OPL 2002) and License to establish Petroleum Refinery, and based on that act of the defendants, the plaintiffs made part payment of the signature bonus while liaising with the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN) on exchange rate arrangements for the balance.

    He said consequent upon the said award/offer of Oil Prospecting License — OPL 2002 and license to establish petroleum refinery by the defendants, the plaintiffs submitted a detailed engineering design as per statutory compliance for the construction of 50,000 BPSD Refinery at Iko Community, Eastern Obolo L.G.A of Akwa Ibom.

    He said the defendants, in their wisdom after series of review, approved the detailed engineering design and construction as submitted and further advised the plaintiffs to proceed to the next phase of the project.

    “That a subsequent high-level stakeholders meeting chaired by the then AGF, on-behalf of the defendants, wherein he proposed a settlement offering the plaintiffs either two oil fields from OPL 2002.

    “This, is a with a complete data for each of the fields, or three (3) other marginal fields of its choice with complete data for the fields elsewhere from the Government Basket, under sole risk terms with a nominal signature bonus.”

    Ezeamama said owing to the facts as stated above, the plaintiffs selected the Obuzo, Uzoaku, and Ofemini Oil Fields, which were approved for implementation by the defendants.

    “However, the fields were later included in a marginal field bid round and sold to other operators, leaving none available as alternatives for the plaintiffs,” he said.

    According to him, the matter remained unresolved for years, and each time the plaintiffs approached the defendants for the replacement of their oil fields, the defendants would always make promises and undertakings to the plaintiffs that they will provide them with other viable oil fields of equivalent value to the earlier ones as granted to them which were unjustifiably withdrawn.

    The director averred that they are entitled to the allocation of the said Yorla South – PPL 2A32 – OML 11; Akiapiri: PPL 2A48-OML 25; Diebu Creek East – OML 32 and Idiok: PPL 2A41-OML 67 and grant of license of same as alternative to the earlier oil fields which were unreasonably withdrawn by the defendants.

    He said this was so because they had fulfilled the conditions for the grant and also particularly in-line with the consent judgement of the court.

    Ezeamama said irreparable loss would have been visited on the plaintiffs and a state of hopelessness would be foisted on the court, if the application was not granted and the defendants go ahead to deal adversely with the plaintiffs’ interest on the selected oil fields.

    “That the plaintiffs have suffered grave financial loss and emotional torture in the hands of the defendants, who have continued to dribble the plaintiffs at will” he alleged.

  • Arresting abuse of power in Nigeria’s judicial appointments

    Arresting abuse of power in Nigeria’s judicial appointments

     

     

    *By Chidi Anselm Odinkalu

    *“A Judge who takes advantage of the judicial office for personal gain or for gain by his or her relative or relation abuses power…. such abuse of power profoundly violates the public’s trust in the judiciary.”*

    *Code of Conduct for Judicial Officers of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, Rule 8:3 (2016)*

    Eight and a half years ago, in May 2017, a viral audio clip circulated, purportedly featuring a conversation between a male Senator of the Federal Republic of Nigeria and a female judge who had presided over an election petition involving the Senator in the preceding year. In the sound clip, both could be heard importuning one another. The female voice asked the Senator to ensure that whatever he delivered, he must “make it in USD (American dollars)” and sought reassurance from him in securing a job for her daughter in the public service of one of the states of the Niger Delta. The male voice seemed deeply solicitous of her wishes in a conversation that did not leave much to the imagination in terms of both the subject matter and the quid pro quo.

    It was believed at the time that the clip involved a judge who served at the head of an election tribunal that dismissed a petition against the Senator in respect of a contest for a seat in the upper chamber of the National Assembly in one of the States in the Middle Belt of Nigeria in the 2015 general elections. A subsequent petition to the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission by some non-governmental organisations for an investigation into the clip and its contents ultimately yielded little.

    The principal characters in the dramatic sound clip have since gone on to prosper in a fashion that Nigeria uniquely makes possible. After being eventually removed from his seat, the distinguished Senator opted to read for a law degree. The contents of the sound clip were not an issue when, in July 2025, the Body of Benchers admitted him to the Nigerian Bar, and then the Supreme Court enrolled him to practise as a lawyer in the country.

    In February 2021, the judge widely alleged to be the voice in the sound clip rose to become the Chief Judge of a State High Court in one of the six states of the Niger Delta.

    It appears the daughter mentioned in the clip eventually got the promised job. Her career as a State Counsel prospered in meteoric fashion. Thirteen years into her legal career, in the last quarter of 2025, she got promoted to an Assistant Director in the Ministry of Justice. In the second week of January 2026, she will visit Abuja, where a committee of the National Judicial Council (NJC) presided over by a senior Justice of the Supreme Court will interview her for the highly coveted position of a seat on the Bench of the Federal High Court. She goes in with insider advantage against a candidate ten years her senior at the bar and who, it seems, was actually ahead of her on merit.

    That seat is one of 14 judicial vacancies in the Federal High Court to be filled in the first quarter of 2026. In all, the NJC Committee is reportedly scheduled to interview 28 candidates over a period of three days. Twenty-four of the candidates are from twelve states and territories in Nigeria, namely: Abia, Akwa Ibom, Cross River, Enugu, Imo, Kaduna, Kwara, Plateau, Sokoto, Taraba, Zamfara, and the Federal Capital Territory (FCT).

    The NJC Committee will include at least two retired Justices of the Supreme Court; a retired Justice of the Court of Appeal; the current president of the Nigerian Bar Association, and one of his more recent predecessors. The Committee will also interview four candidates from Nasarawa State, which has two vacancies.

    The Federal Judicial Service Commission (FJSC) did the shortlisting for the 28 candidates. That stage of the process involved, among other evaluations, a computer-based test (CBT) and an aptitude test, in relation to both of which each candidate is scored, but the scores are not published. It is no surprise that such an opaque process lends itself to controversy around three issues.

    First, some “unsuccessful” candidates have accused “judicial authorities of manipulating the results and shortlisting candidates who allegedly failed the qualifying examination.” It is claimed that some of the candidates on the final shortlist of 28 scored as low as 30% or even 25%. One person alleged specifically that “the name of the person who scored the highest in the test was excluded from the list”, claiming that the person was a candidate from a state in south-east Nigeria. This will not be the first time that such an allegation has been made in relation to judicial appointments to the Federal High Court. As long as the FJSC and the NJC remain unwilling to publish the scores of all the candidates, it is impossible to discount these allegations.

    Second, at its 108th meeting on 29-30 April 2025, the NJC decided that “henceforth, the FJSC, all judicial Service Commissions or Committee of the FCT, shall publish the names of all candidates recommended for judicial appointments. The primary objective of this initiative is to solicit comments from the general public regarding the integrity, reputation, and suitability of these candidates for judicial office.”

    At the time, this seemed impressive. In reality, it was a sleight of hand. The grounds for public input at this impractical stage, defined by the NJC, are limited to issues of “integrity, reputation and suitability” of the recommended candidates. But if a decision has been made to recommend a candidate, then these issues would already have been considered. In effect, by the time a candidate is “recommended” for judicial office, the effective opportunities for public objection have in fact been foreclosed.

    Third, therefore, the only viable ground at this stage for objection to the process would be the integrity of the appointment process itself. This is arguably the most important issue engaged by this present appointment round into the Federal High Court Bench. Rule 11(iv) of the Judicial Code of Conduct requires that “in the exercise of his administrative duties, a Judicial Officer should avoid nepotism and favouritism.”

    Yet, it is difficult not to look upon the shortlist of candidates that the NJC committee will be interviewing next month as anything other than an advertisement of nepotism and favouritism. The list is rich with children or candidates of serving or retired senior judges, some of them involved in the process.

    The judicial daughter mentioned earlier in this piece is by no means the only insider on the list. The candidate to be appointed from Kaduna State, for instance, is guaranteed to be a second-generation judge; both candidates to be interviewed from the state are scions of former judges. Of the two candidates from Abia State, one is the child of a serving judge.

    Akwa Ibom State also features a preferred candidate who works with and is adopted by a serving senior judge who may himself even be involved in the interview process. Taraba State has a similar story, and these are just random examples.

    This pattern populates the entire shortlist without disguise or shame.

    Humanity elsewhere does not know a thing like the judicial gene. It only exists in Nigeria. One tweep describes what passes for the judicial appointment process in Nigeria as “filiality via conjugality.”

    It seems evident that Nigeria’s process of judicial appointments has become largely performative, rigged to the pre-determined end of injecting children into judicial hereditaments occupied or recently vacated by their parents or patrons. Rather perversely, the so-called reform decided upon by the NJC in April 2025 of publishing the names of candidates “recommended” for judicial office is designed entirely to lend legitimacy to a pre-determined process in clear violation of the Judicial Code of Conduct.

    The Chief Justice of Nigeria (CJN) has an opportunity in this present round of hires to the Federal High Court Bench to course-correct. As a first step, she should publish the scores of all candidates throughout the process. That will reassure the public about her commitment to liberating judicial appointments in Nigeria from continuing abduction by the forces of capture, conjugality and abuse of power.

    *A lawyer and a teacher, Odinkalu can be reached at chidi.odinkalu@tufts.edu*