 on Friday re-arraigned former Attorney-General of the Federation,){kind=link}
The Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) on Friday re-arraigned former Attorney-General of the Federation, Abubakar Malami, alongside his wife, Asabe Bashir, and their son, Abdulaziz Malami, over alleged money laundering offences.
The trio appeared before Justice Joyce Abdulmalik of the Federal High Court in Abuja. The re-arraignment followed the reassignment of the case, making her the third judge to handle the matter since charges were filed in December 2025.
The EFCC initially brought the defendants before Justice Emeka Nwite on 30 December 2025 during the court’s vacation sitting. After regular court sessions resumed, the case file was returned to the Chief Judge of the Federal High Court, John Tsoho, for reassignment in line with standard procedure.
The case was subsequently assigned to Justice Obiora Egwuatu, who later stepped down for personal reasons. It was then reassigned to Justice Abdulmalik.
At Friday’s proceedings, EFCC counsel Jibrin Okutepa (SAN) informed the court that the matter was appearing before the judge for the first time and requested that the defendants’ pleas be retaken. He also sought permission to correct clerical errors in Counts 11 and 12 of the charge sheet. The prosecution clarified that the sums in question should read N325 million instead of N325 billion for Count 11, and N120 million instead of N120 billion for Count 12.
Defence counsel Joseph Daudu (SAN) objected to the proposed corrections, but the court granted the prosecution’s request. The amended charges were then read, and all three defendants pleaded not guilty to the 16-count charge.
According to the EFCC, the defendants allegedly concealed and moved approximately N8.7 billion, some of which was reportedly used to acquire properties in Abuja and other locations. The alleged offences were said to have occurred during and after Malami’s tenure as Attorney-General.
In addition to the criminal trial, Malami is facing separate asset forfeiture proceedings initiated by the EFCC, as well as terrorism financing charges filed by the State Security Service (SSS).
On 6 January, Justice Nwite granted an interim forfeiture order covering 57 properties valued at nearly N213 billion, pending the determination of any legitimate claims. The EFCC maintains that the assets are suspected proceeds of unlawful activities. The order allows interested parties to present evidence before the court decides on permanent forfeiture.
The forfeiture action followed raids on properties linked to Malami, during which arms were reportedly discovered. Malami has denied any connection to firearms found on the premises. The EFCC referred the arms allegation to the SSS for further investigation.
In January, the SSS arrested Malami shortly after his release from Kuje Correctional Centre, where he had been remanded pending fulfillment of bail conditions in the money laundering case. On 3 February, the SSS arraigned him and his son before Justice Abdulmalik on terrorism financing and firearms-related charges. The prosecution alleges that in November 2022, Malami knowingly failed to prosecute suspected terrorism financiers whose case files were submitted to his office while he served as AGF. Both defendants pleaded not guilty to the six-count charge.
Despite his arraignment, Malami remains in SSS custody.
Meanwhile, Malami has challenged the EFCC’s forfeiture proceedings. In a motion filed on 27 January through his legal team led by Daudu, he argued that the interim forfeiture order was obtained through suppression of material facts and misrepresentation. He warned against what he described as duplicative litigation and conflicting judicial outcomes, contending that the action infringes on his constitutional rights, including the presumption of innocence and the right to property and family life.
In contesting the forfeiture, Malami presented details of six income sources, which he claimed total approximately N15 billion. Additional applicants have also approached the court seeking to overturn the interim forfeiture order.
Proceedings in the forfeiture case have similarly experienced delays due to multiple judicial reassignments.