Did Anyone Try to Bribe the Judge in Malami’s ₦8.7 Billion Money Laundering Trial? Why the Former AGF Is Denying Influence Claims, Accusing EFCC of a ‘Media Trial,’ and Insisting on Judicial Integrity
Did anyone attempt to bribe or improperly influence the judge handling Abubakar Malami’s high-profile ₦8.7 billion money laundering case? Why did the former Attorney-General of the Federation feel compelled to issue a public denial? And is the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) conducting a legitimate prosecution—or, as Malami claims, waging a “media trial” aimed at damaging his reputation?
Following a Federal High Court ruling in Maitama, Abuja, which granted bail to Malami, his wife, and their son, reports circulated suggesting that the presiding judge, Justice Emeka Nwite, had raised concerns about attempts to compromise the court. In response, Malami strongly rejected any insinuation that he—or anyone acting on his behalf—sought to influence the judge in any form.
In a statement signed by his media aide, Mohammed Bello Doka, Malami described the allegation as “mischievous, false, and deliberately misleading.” He categorically stated that no member of his legal team, family, or associates approached or contemplated approaching the court for any favour. Any suggestion otherwise, he said, was reckless and intended to tarnish his public image.
But what exactly did the judge say? According to Malami, Justice Nwite’s remarks were a routine judicial warning delivered to all counsel and litigants appearing before the court—not a statement directed at him or his co-defendants. He noted that the judge is known for consistently cautioning lawyers against any attempt to contact him outside formal proceedings, as part of his commitment to judicial probity.
Why then did the controversy erupt? Malami accused the EFCC of “weaponising” a standard courtroom admonition and presenting it to the public as evidence of attempted interference. He argued that this narrative was crafted to prejudice public opinion and undermine due process rather than allow the case to be determined strictly on evidence.
“The proper place to prove allegations is in the courtroom, not in the media,” Malami said, reiterating that neither he nor his family had offered any bribe or sought any special treatment. He maintained that he respects the sanctity of the judiciary, emphasising both his status as a Senior Advocate of Nigeria and his past role as the nation’s chief law officer.
What is at stake? The case involves serious allegations of money laundering running into billions of naira against Malami, his wife, Hajia Bashir Asabe, and their son, Abubakar Abdulaziz Malami. During proceedings, Justice Nwite openly warned all parties not to attempt any personal approaches, stressing that legal representation—not backdoor contacts—is the only acceptable means of advocacy before his court.
As the trial continues, a critical question remains for Nigerians: is this a straightforward judicial caution being misrepresented for headlines, or does the dispute reflect a deeper battle between a former top legal official and the country’s anti-graft agency over credibility, due process, and public perception?
Did Anyone Try to Bribe the Judge in Malami’s ₦8.7 Billion Money Laundering Trial? Why the Former AGF Is Denying Influence Claims, Accusing EFCC of a ‘Media Trial,’ and Insisting on Judicial Integrity
Did anyone attempt to bribe or improperly influence the judge handling Abubakar Malami’s high-profile ₦8.7 billion money laundering case? Why did the former Attorney-General of the Federation feel compelled to issue a public denial? And is the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) conducting a legitimate prosecution—or, as Malami claims, waging a “media trial” aimed at damaging his reputation?
Following a Federal High Court ruling in Maitama, Abuja, which granted bail to Malami, his wife, and their son, reports circulated suggesting that the presiding judge, Justice Emeka Nwite, had raised concerns about attempts to compromise the court. In response, Malami strongly rejected any insinuation that he—or anyone acting on his behalf—sought to influence the judge in any form.
In a statement signed by his media aide, Mohammed Bello Doka, Malami described the allegation as “mischievous, false, and deliberately misleading.” He categorically stated that no member of his legal team, family, or associates approached or contemplated approaching the court for any favour. Any suggestion otherwise, he said, was reckless and intended to tarnish his public image.
But what exactly did the judge say? According to Malami, Justice Nwite’s remarks were a routine judicial warning delivered to all counsel and litigants appearing before the court—not a statement directed at him or his co-defendants. He noted that the judge is known for consistently cautioning lawyers against any attempt to contact him outside formal proceedings, as part of his commitment to judicial probity.
Why then did the controversy erupt? Malami accused the EFCC of “weaponising” a standard courtroom admonition and presenting it to the public as evidence of attempted interference. He argued that this narrative was crafted to prejudice public opinion and undermine due process rather than allow the case to be determined strictly on evidence.
“The proper place to prove allegations is in the courtroom, not in the media,” Malami said, reiterating that neither he nor his family had offered any bribe or sought any special treatment. He maintained that he respects the sanctity of the judiciary, emphasising both his status as a Senior Advocate of Nigeria and his past role as the nation’s chief law officer.
What is at stake? The case involves serious allegations of money laundering running into billions of naira against Malami, his wife, Hajia Bashir Asabe, and their son, Abubakar Abdulaziz Malami. During proceedings, Justice Nwite openly warned all parties not to attempt any personal approaches, stressing that legal representation—not backdoor contacts—is the only acceptable means of advocacy before his court.
As the trial continues, a critical question remains for Nigerians: is this a straightforward judicial caution being misrepresented for headlines, or does the dispute reflect a deeper battle between a former top legal official and the country’s anti-graft agency over credibility, due process, and public perception?