The Federal High Court in Abuja on Tuesday ordered the remand of a former Attorney General of the Federation (AGF) and Minister of Justice, Abubakar Malami, SAN, alongside two others, at the Kuje Correctional Centre, Abuja, pending the hearing and determination of their written bail application fixed for January 2, 2026.
Malami, Hajia Bashir Asabe, a staff of Ramadiya Property Limited, and Abubakar Abdulaziz Malami were arraigned before Justice Emeka Nwite by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) on a 16-count charge bordering on money laundering.
The former AGF and his co-defendants will remain in custody until January 2, 2026, when their written bail application will be argued by their legal team, led by Joseph Daudu, SAN.
At the arraignment, the defendants pleaded not guilty to the 16-count charge when it was read to them in open court. The prosecution counsel, Ekele Iheanacho, SAN, thereafter urged the court to fix a date for the commencement of trial.
He informed the court that the defendants’ written bail application had been served on him earlier on Tuesday and requested time to respond to it.
Moving the bail application orally, counsel to the defendants, Joseph Daudu, SAN, argued that after examining the 16-count charge and the relevant law, it was proper to apply for bail orally, adding that, “Only condition where one need a written application is where it is a capital offence.
“The offences of money laundering are bailable offences. The charges are not complicated, they are bailable and the defendants are presumed innocent until proven guilty by the court,” he said, urging the court to grant them bail.
Daudu further told the court that Malami and his co-defendants were not flight risks, noting that they had been on administrative bail granted by the EFCC until their detention for arraignment.
He added that Malami, who served as AGF and Minister of Justice for eight years, would not contemplate absconding in any way, and prayed that they be admitted to bail to enable them prepare for their defence.
However, EFCC counsel opposed the oral bail application, arguing that Section 162 of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act (ACJA) stipulates factors the court must consider before exercising its discretion on bail.
“Those factors can only come into the court through affidavit evidence and to determine whether to grant bail or not, both the prosecution and the defence would be given the opportunity to state their facts and these facts belong to the witnesses.
“They do not belong to counsel. The law is trite that submission of counsel is not an evidence and cannot replace evidence. This is a court of records.
“It will amount to a serious ambush against the prosecution and a sort of springing surprise to the prosecution which the court cannot condone,” Justice Nwite held.
Iheanacho further submitted that the presumption of innocence enjoyed by the first defendant did not automatically entitle him to bail, stressing that such presumption must be balanced against the interest of justice.
“The charge before the court borders on alleged serious economic crimes, involving complex financial networks and it is a serious matter in the country.
ALSO READ: Clean as whistle: Tinubu writes off $1.42bn, N5.57tn NNPC debt
“It affects 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 first defendant because of his status and giving him preferential treatment.
“There is need to balance public interest and interest of justice in a matter of this nature,” he said.
After standing down the matter briefly, Justice Nwite delivered a short ruling, noting that it was not in dispute that written bail applications had been filed for each of the defendants and served on the EFCC on Monday, and that the applications were still pending before the court.
“What is surprising is the oral application made by the defence despite the pendency of the written bail application of the defendants before the court.
“It will amount to an ambush to the prosecution if the court grant the oral bail application without allowing the prosecution the opportunity to be heard.
“The interest of justice will be served if the prosecution is allowed to respond to that written bail application as doing otherwise will amount to denial of fair hearing,” the judge held.
He accordingly adjourned the matter to January 2, 2026, for the hearing of the written bail application and ordered that the defendants be remanded at the Kuje Correctional Centre pending the hearing.