Alleged N8.7bn Fraud: Malami, Wife, Son to Spend New Year in Kuje Prison

As court adjourns bail application to Jan 2, 2026

A Federal High Court, sitting jn Maitama, Abuja, has remanded the immediate past Attorney-General of the Federation and Minister of Justice, Abubakar Malami, SAN, alongside his wife, Hajia Bashir Asabe, and son, Abubakar Abdulaziz Malami, to the Kuje Correctional Centre over alleged money laundering offences to the tune of N8, 713,923, 759.49.

BIGPEN NIGERIA (https://bigpenngr.com) reports the remand following the adjournment of the money laundering matter brougjt by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission, EFCC, to January 2, 2026 for hearing of the bail application.

The defendants were arraigned before Justice Emeka Nwite on Tuesday, December 30, 2025 on a 16-count charge bordering on conspiracy, procuring, disguising, concealing and laundering proceeds of unlawful activities, contrary to the provisions of the Money Laundering (Prevention and Prohibition) Act, 2022.

Malami’s wife, Hajia Bashir Asabe

Abubakar Abdulaziz Malami

At the commencement of proceedings, prosecution counsel, Ekele Iheanacho, SAN, informed the court that the matter was for arraignment of the defendants.

“My Lord, this matter is for the arraignment of the defendants on a 16-count charge dated and filed on December 23, 2025. We humbly pray that the charge be read to the defendants and their pleas taken,” he said.

Immediate past Attorney-General of the Federation and Minister of Justice, Abubakar Malami, SAN

Counsel to the defendants, J. B. Daudu, SAN, raised no objection, following which Justice Nwite ordered that the charge be read.

Count one of the charge reads: “That you Abubakar Malami, SAN, and Abubakar Abdulaziz Malami, between July 2022 and June 2025, in Abuja, procured Metropolitan Auto Tech Limited to conceal the unlawful origin of the sum of N1,014,848,500.00 (One Billion, Fourteen Million, Eight Hundred and Forty-Eight Thousand, Five Hundred Naira) in a Sterling Bank Plc account, when they reasonably ought to have known that the sum constituted proceeds of unlawful activities, thereby committing an offence contrary to Section 21(c) of the Money Laundering (Prevention and Prohibition) Act, 2022, and punishable under Section 18(3) of the same Act”.

Count five reads: “That you Abubakar Malami, SAN, Abubakar Abdulaziz Malami and Hajia Bashir Asabe, an employee of Rahamaniyya Properties Limited, sometime in September 2024, in Abuja, conspired to disguise the unlawful origin of the aggregate sum of N1,049,173,926.13 (One Billion, Forty-Nine Million, One Hundred and Seventy-Three Thousand, Nine Hundred and Twenty-Six Naira, Thirteen Kobo) paid through the Union Bank Plc account of Meethaq Hotels Limited, Jabi, between November 2022 and September 2024, contrary to Section 21 of the Money Laundering (Prevention and Prohibition) Act, 2022, and punishable under Sections 18(2)(a) and 18(3) of the same Act”.

Count six reads: “That you Abubakar Malami, SAN, and Abubakar Abdulaziz Malami, between November 2022 and October 2025, indirectly took control of the aggregate sum of N1,362,887,872.96 (One Billion, Three Hundred and Sixty-Two Million, Eight Hundred and Eighty-Seven Thousand, Eight Hundred and Seventy-Two Naira, Ninety-Six Kobo) paid through the Union Bank Plc savings account of Meethaq Hotels Limited, when they reasonably ought to have known that the funds constituted proceeds of unlawful activities, contrary to Section 18(2)(d) and punishable under Section 18(3) of the Money Laundering (Prevention and Prohibition) Act, 2022.

Following the pleas, Iheanacho informed the court that the prosecution was ready for trial and requested a trial date. He disclosed that the prosecution had been served with a bail application by the defence a day earlier and sought time to respond.

In response, Daudu urged the court to grant bail orally, contending that the alleged offences were bailable.

“My Lord, having listened carefully to the 16-count charge, this is a proper case for an oral application for bail,” he said, citing Abiola v. FRN.

“The offences alleged are bailable, and Section 216 of the ACJA does not mandate that an application for bail must be made in writing,” he said.

Opposing the application, Iheanacho urged the court to discountenance the oral bail request.

“My Lord, we oppose the oral application for bail. The case of Abiola v. FRN relied upon by learned silk is inapplicable,” he argued.

He further submitted that the court must be guided by affidavit evidence.

“This is a court of record. Submissions of counsel, no matter how brilliantly presented, do not amount to evidence and cannot replace affidavit evidence,” he said, warning that granting the oral application would amount to ambushing the prosecution.

On the gravity of the case, Iheanacho stressed public interest considerations.

“The charge before this Honourable Court borders on serious economic crimes involving complex financial networks, and public interest must be taken into account,” he submitted, adding that the high office previously held by the first defendant did not entitle him to preferential treatment.

In his ruling, Justice Nwite held that the prosecution must be given the opportunity to respond adequately to the bail application.
“Having listened to the submissions of learned counsel, the prosecution must be allowed adequate opportunity to respond,” the judge ruled.

He ordered that the defendants be remanded at the Kuje Correctional Centre and adjourned the matter to January 2, 2026 for hearing of the bail application.