Alleged N8.7b Fraud: Justice Egwuatu Steps Down from Malami’s Trial.

Alleged N8.7b Fraud: Justice Egwuatu Steps Down from Malami’s Trial.

ABUJA — The high-profile money laundering and asset forfeiture cases involving former Attorney General of the Federation, Abubakar Malami (SAN), hit a significant procedural bottleneck today. Justice Obiora Egwuatu of the Federal High Court in Abuja has formally recused himself from the proceedings, without citing reasons for his withdrawal. This development comes barely a week after the Chief Judge, Justice John Tsoho, reassigned the matters to him following the conclusion of the court’s Christmas vacation. Consequently, the legal battle over the alleged 57 properties must return to the Chief Judge for a fresh assignment.

The Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) initially arraigned Malami, alongside his son, Abdulaziz, and an associate, Hajiya Bashir Asabe, in December 2025. The 16-count charge alleges the concealment of approximately N8.7 billion in funds suspected to be proceeds of unlawful activity. Furthermore, the agency successfully obtained an interim forfeiture order for 57 properties across Abuja, Kebbi, and Kano. Importantly, several persons have filed suits in court to claim ownership of some of those properties.

Conversely, Malami has consistently maintained his innocence, describing the forfeiture proceedings as an assault on his fundamental rights. His legal team, led by Joseph Daudu (SAN), argued that the former AGF acquired the assets through legitimate business streams. They claimed the EFCC misled the previous judge by suppressing material facts regarding the defendant’s asset declaration forms.

The recusal of Justice Egwuatu raises questions about the trial, and necessitates a de novo commencement of the cases for the third time in three months. While Justice Emeka Nwite handled the initial arraignment and interim forfeiture during the vacation period, the reassignment to Justice Egwuatu was intended to provide a permanent trial home. However, today’s withdrawal effectively freezes the scheduled hearing for the forfeiture suit and the planned re-arraignment on the criminal charges. Legal analysts observe that frequent judicial changes often delay justice.