The legal and challenge of accountability storm surrounding former Attorney-General of the Federation, Abubakar Malami, SAN, presents a profound test for Nigeria’s anti-corruption institutions and the principle of equality before the law. The narrative, as pieced together from multiple investigations, court records, and whistleblower accounts, paints a portrait, not of a mere suspect, but of a central figure in a labyrinth of controversial financial dealings and grave national security compromises.

His current strategy of portraying himself as a victim of ethnic and political persecution is a masterclass in deflection, attempting to obscure a trail of questions that strike at the heart of national governance and security.

Malami’s audacity of deflection via recent press releases through his Special Assistant on Media, Mohammed Bello Doka is a breathtaking pivot.

Faced with detention by the EFCC over allegations of graft and connections to terrorism financing, Doka’s responses on behalf of his boss are not to squarely address the specific charges against Malami, but to launch a pre-emptive strikes on the government of the day and the very institution probing the case.

Just a couple of days ago, the same Doka released a long epistle on how Northern Muslim leaders are being sidelined and replaced by Christians by the current administration of President Ahmed Bola Tinubu.

And, this week, Monday 15th December 2025, he came up with another short-legged press release demanding the EFCC chairman’s recusal from the case based on a historical vendetta. This move raises an immediate, critical question: if Malami is so confident in his innocence, why is his primary focus on disqualifying the investigator rather than dismantling the evidence against him?

The strategy is familiar; shift the discourse from what is being investigated to who is heading the investigation, thereby muddying the waters with claims of political witch-hunts and ethnic targeting.

It would be an understatement or not out of place to declare that Malami’s actions are particularly audacious given the gravity of the tangential allegations from many other quarters. Retired Major General Ali-Keffi’s explosive testimony may technically not accuse Malami of direct terrorism financing, but it places him squarely in a constellation of power where such financing allegedly festered.

According to the former head of a presidential task force, Malami was “linked” to suspects arrested for funneling money to terrorists. The logical question Malami must answer is not just about a direct transfer of funds, but about the nature of these “business connections.” What were the terms? What services were rendered? In a climate where Bureau de Change operations were identified as covers for terrorism financing, what due diligence did the then-chief law officer of the federation exercise in his associations?

It is becoming glaring by the day that there are multifarious unresolved ghosts of past deals which Malami spearheaded. Terrorism financing shadows are cast by the long, unbroken trail of earlier financial controversies that Malami has never satisfactorily addressed. The 2017 case of the $17 million legal fees is instructive. As detailed by the Cable Foundation, Malami engaged two lawyers with political ties to him, Oladipo Okpeseyi and Temitope Isaac Adebayo, for a job already completed by Swiss lawyer Enrico Monfrini, essentially authorizing a duplicate payment for no clear legal work.

When pressed for transparency via an FOI request, Malami refused. When sued, his office did not defend the merits of the payment; instead, the case was dismissed on a technicality concerning the foundation’s registration.

The public never received the breakdown requested. The lingering question then should be as follows: Who ultimately benefited from that $17 million, and what was the true purpose of a payment for a “recovery” that was already concluded?

This pattern of opaqueness extends further. What of the allegations surrounding the sale of forfeited assets by the defunct Presidential Committee on the Audit of Recovered Assets (PCARA), which operated under Malami’s supervision? Widespread reports suggested valuable assets were sold for a fraction of their worth to cronies.

What was Malami’s role in overseeing these sales? Furthermore, what about the controversial handling of the Paris Club refunds and the associated legal fees paid to unknown consultants?

As AGF, Malami approved payments running into hundreds of millions of dollars with scant public documentation. The EFCC’s current investigation likely touches on these and other nebulous transactions where public funds seemed to evaporate into complex legal and consultancy fees.

From the foregoing, one won’t be completely wrong to suggest that the former AGF Malami is a possible National Security threat. His demand for immediate release or charge within 24 hours, while couched in constitutional terms, ignores the complex reality of investigating powerful individuals with vast networks.

Such an error (of releasing him when investigations are still ongoing) from the EFCC would only buy the accused time to regroup and restrategize. This is not a simple case of petty theft.

The allegations intertwine grand corruption with national security; specifically, the financing of an insurgency that has killed thousands and displaced millions of Nigerians. Investigations into such matters are inherently intricate, requiring forensic analysis of financial trails across jurisdictions, interrogation of interconnected suspects, and the piecing together of a puzzle designed by elites to be opaque.

Giving Malami’s previously demonstrated influence, where a sitting General accused him of attempting to divert a terrorism financing case to a more pliable agency (the EFCC under his relative, Abdulrasheed Bawa), and where a sitting President allegedly asked an investigator to “reconcile” with him, the risk of evidence tampering, witness intimidation, and obstruction of justice is exceptionally high.

His tenure as AGF saw him exercise control over the EFCC, the NFIU, and the entire federal prosecution apparatus. To grant him liberty during an active investigation into the system he once commanded is to potentially cripple the inquiry.

The EFCC’s decision to hold him is not necessarily an abuse; it can be argued as a critical safeguard to preserve the integrity of a probe of monumental importance. Nigerians deserve justice!

Beyond politics and ethnicity, Malami has so many questions to answer. His attempt to frame this as a North-vs-South or ADC-vs-APC issue is a disservice to the nation. The questions demand answers that transcend political camps.

As a concerned citizen, I am certain that fellow Nigerians would like Malami to answer these questions:
Regarding the Ali-Keffi allegations: Can you provide a detailed account of your known relationships or dealings with the terrorism financing suspects to whom you were linked? Did you, at any point, directly or indirectly, intervene on behalf of any suspect detained by Operation Service Wide?

Regarding the $17 million legal fees, can you present to the public the written legal opinion or contract that justified engaging Okpeseyi and Adebayo, detailing the specific, unique work they performed that Monfrini had not already completed?

Regarding asset sales and recovery funds, can you account for the full inventory and final disposal of all assets forfeited to the federal government during your tenure, and provide verifiable records showing they were sold at fair market value?

As for the alleged $50 million bribe offer for the unfreezing of Aboubacar Hima’s $600 million account, as the then AGF, were you aware of this offer? What was your role, if any, in the subsequent decision of the Nigerian government to write to the United States requesting the account be unfrozen?

On the “reconciliation” with the NFIU, what were the “differences” President Buhari asked to be reconciled, and how were they resolved? Should the interrogators at the EFCC not get convincing answers to the above questions, then it would be highly risky to hurriedly release such a person of concern!

To crown it all, Abubakar Malami’s case is a watershed moment. It probes whether a figure who sat at the pinnacle of legal and prosecutorial power can be held to account by the very institutions he once oversaw.

His victimhood narrative is a strategic tool, but it cannot erase the substantive, documented controversies of his tenure, from dubious payments to troubling links in a terrorism financing probe.

The EFCC’s resolve is not just about one man; it is about signaling that the era of impunity, where connections and legal technicalities trump accountability, may finally be closing. For the sake of national security and the integrity of the Nigerian state, these questions must be pursued to their logical conclusion, regardless of whose comfort zone is violated.

The public’s demand is not for a political scalp, but for answers that have been buried for too long under the weight of power and procedure. May Nigeria win!