Legal pressure mounted on former Attorney-General of the Federation, Abubakar Malami, on Tuesday after a Federal High Court ordered that he and his son be taken into custody, a move that underscored the court’s resolve to follow due process in a case involving sweeping financial crime allegations.
Rather than entertain an immediate plea for freedom, the court insisted that the defendants must await a formal determination of their bail request, effectively keeping them behind bars as the judicial process unfolds.
The order was issued in Abuja by Justice Emeka Nwite, who directed that Malami, his son Abdulaziz, and their co-defendant, Bashir Asabe, be remanded at the Kuje Correctional Facility.
The judge ruled that an oral bail application could not stand, given that a written application had already been filed by the defence.
Justice Nwite explained that granting bail at that stage would amount to procedural unfairness.
“The court will not be rushed into a decision when the proper application is already before it,” he said while adjourning proceedings.
Earlier, the trio had pleaded not guilty to a 16-count charge brought against them by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC). Following their plea, the court fixed January 2, 2026, to hear and determine the bail application.
According to the EFCC, the defendants are accused of orchestrating an elaborate money laundering scheme involving more than N8.7 billion.
The charge, identified as FHC/ABJ/CR/700/2025, alleged that the funds were concealed through corporate entities, layered bank transactions, and the acquisition of high-end properties.
Furthermore, the commission alleged that the offences were committed between 2015 and 2025, largely within the Federal Capital Territory, during Malami’s time as the nation’s chief law officer.
Investigators claimed that several properties in Abuja, Kano, and Birnin Kebbi were acquired using proxies to obscure true ownership.
The EFCC also alleged that Bashir Asabe, described as a staff member of Rahamaniyya Properties Ltd, played a facilitative role in structuring the transactions and managing the disputed assets.
“She was central to the execution of the property deals,” a prosecution source said.
The anti-graft agency maintained that the alleged conduct violates both the Money Laundering (Prohibition) Act, 2011, as amended, and the Money Laundering (Prevention and Prohibition) Act, 2022.
It added that a lineup of witnesses, including bank officials and investigators, has been prepared to support its case as trial proceedings continue.