A dispute has emerged between former Attorney-General of the Federation Abubakar Malami and the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission over whether a court bail order was properly served, highlighting tensions around compliance with judicial directives in high-profile cases.
On 23 December 2025, Justice Bello Kawu of the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory granted Malami interim bail on terms previously set by the EFCC, including surrender of his international passport and provision of two sureties. The ruling came in Motion No. M/17220/2025, with the case adjourned to 5 January 2026.
Malami’s media aide, Mohammed Bello Doka, stated that EFCC officials were formally served with the order shortly after it was issued. According to Doka, a court bailiff attempted service at the EFCC headquarters, but staff refused to accept the documents. He emphasised that refusal does not invalidate service, and proof exists to confirm attempts were made in line with court rules.
In response, EFCC lead counsel Jibrin Samuel Okutepa, SAN, maintained that neither the commission nor his firm had received the order as of 25 December 2025. Okutepa described claims of defiance as misleading, noting he learned of the alleged order via social media. He argued that proper service is essential for enforcement and questioned the propriety of granting bail without notifying the detaining authority.
The controversy stems from Malami’s ongoing detention amid EFCC investigations into allegations of money laundering and unlawful asset acquisition. The commission filed 16 charges against Malami, his son, and an associate, covering offences reportedly committed between 2015 and 2025. Malami was initially invited on 28 November 2025, granted administrative bail, but detained from 8 December after allegedly failing to meet conditions. A prior remand order from 10 December allowed 14 days in custody, upheld in subsequent rulings.
Legal experts have weighed in on the broader implications. Barrister Mukhtar Abubakar noted that bail, as a constitutional right under Section 35 of the 1999 Constitution, must be respected once granted by a competent court unless overturned. He stressed that anti-corruption agencies like the EFCC should adhere strictly to due process to maintain credibility: “The fight against corruption cannot be effective if due process and court orders are treated with disregard.”
Constitutional lawyer Abdullahi Inuha described the situation as a litmus test for institutional respect for the judiciary, particularly involving prominent figures and powerful agencies. Civil society observers have called for restraint, urging resolution through courts rather than public statements to preserve trust in the justice system.
Malami’s camp has accused the EFCC of media trials and unlawful detention beyond the initial remand period, while the commission insists its actions comply with subsisting orders. As proceedings continue, the case underscores the delicate balance between investigative powers and judicial oversight in Nigeria’s anti-graft efforts.