STOP THE SENTIMENTS — THE LAW, NOT EMOTION, MUST GOVERN THE MALAMI INVESTIGATION

Reported by: Oahimire Omone Precious | Edited by: Gabriel Osa

In a carefully worded press statement titled “Stop the Sentiments: The Law, Not Emotion, Must Govern the Malami Investigation,” legal practitioner Chief Malcolm Emokiniovo Omirhobo has responded to rising public debate over the ongoing investigation of former Attorney-General of the Federation and Minister of Justice, Abubakar Malami (SAN). The statement seeks to ground discourse in Nigeria’s legal framework, urging restraint and adherence to due process in the face of emotional and politically charged commentary.

At the core of the debate is Malami’s detention by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) amid a high-profile probe involving allegations of abuse of office, money laundering and the handling of recovered public funds, including substantial sums connected to the controversial Abacha loots secured through Mutual Legal Assistance Treaties.

The EFCC confirmed that Mr. Malami was taken into custody in early December 2025 as part of an extensive inquiry into suspected financial improprieties during his time as Nigeria’s top law officer. Among the issues under scrutiny are the management of $490 million in recovered Abacha funds, his conduct in relation to terrorism financing allegations and unexplained financial activities tied to multiple bank accounts. 

Following his initial arrest, Malami was granted administrative bail, a common practice where a suspect is released from custody under specific terms and conditions pending the conclusion of an investigation or arraignment. However, he has remained in EFCC custody after reported failure to satisfy the bail terms, which involved stringent requirements that he was unable to perfect in the allotted time. 

In mid-December, Malami’s bid to secure bail through a Federal Capital Territory (FCT) High Court was dismissed by Justice Babangida Hassan, who ruled that his detention was lawful and grounded in existing court orders stemming from a valid remand directive granted earlier by another court. The judge cited constitutional and procedural provisions, noting that the court cannot overturn a remand order issued by a coordinate jurisdiction. 

This judicial decision directly addresses one of the key points in Chief Omirhobo’s press release: that continued detention under valid bail and remand orders is not arbitrary or punitive but conforms to Nigeria’s criminal justice system. In effect, the court’s ruling reinforces the legal foundation for the EFCC’s course of action, irrespective of political or public sentiment. 

The press statement stresses that Malami’s bail was granted, but that the legal right to freedom is contingent upon meeting the stipulated conditions — a point well established in criminal jurisprudence. The EFCC maintains that Malami did not meet any of the five conditions tied to his administrative bail, including financial or personal sureties and daily reporting requirements, and that his detention remains lawful for that reason. 

Malami’s camp, however, has disputed the EFCC’s narrative, arguing that he complied with the bail terms and that any revocation or continued detention lacks procedural fairness. His media team has also contested claims he breached bail by attending political events, asserting that such interpretations are misleading.

Beyond the legal wrangling, Malami’s supporters — and even political actors such as the African Democratic Congress (ADC) — have criticised the EFCC’s actions as politically motivated. The ADC has gone as far as to describe the revocation of bail as politically tinged, asserting that restrictive conditions have unfairly affected Malami’s political rights, especially in light of his declared interest in the 2027 gubernatorial race in Kebbi State. 

Malami himself has publicly accused the EFCC chairman of bias and personal animosity, arguing that the current investigation may be influenced by past disputes and his recent political alignment. He has called for the recusal of the EFCC chair and insisted that any fair investigation should be conducted independent of undisclosed grievances or perceived vendettas.

Supporters of contingent transparency and due process have echoed the concern that political or ethnic narratives risk overshadowing the substantive legal issues at hand. This aligns with Chief Omirhobo’s core message: that legal facts and adherence to constitutional procedures should guide public expectations and commentary, not sentiment or speculation.

Chief Omirhobo’s press statement highlights two critical principles of Nigerian law: first, that no individual is above investigation or prosecution; second, that bail is a conditional liberty which, if not properly met, can lead to continued lawful detention. Both points find support in the public record of court rulings and EFCC statements. 

Legal specialists point out that administrative bail is distinct from judicial bail granted by a court, and its conditions — when clearly set and communicated — must be complied with to uphold the integrity of the investigative process. The EFCC’s stance, as articulated in multiple statements, is that Malami’s bail was provisional and contingent on specified requirements he did not fulfil before being re-invited on investigation matters.

The debate encapsulates broader concerns about governance and institutional trust in Nigeria. Episodes involving high-profile former public officials inevitably attract intense public interest and emotional response, particularly when legal processes intersect with political aspirations. However, judges, investigators and legal commentators generally agree that clarity, transparency, and strict adherence to statutory procedures are necessary to prevent the rule of law from being undermined by public discourse.

Experts note that while civil liberties and the presumption of innocence are cornerstones of constitutional democracy, these protections must be balanced with the requirement that suspects comply with legal procedures — including bail conditions — to ensure the integrity of investigations and eventual adjudication.

The controversy surrounding Abubakar Malami’s detention and the calls for restraint in public commentary reflect a tension common in democratic societies: the interplay between legal process and public opinion. Chief Omirhobo’s statement underscores that law — not emotion — must remain the guiding principle, and that courts and legally authorised bodies like the EFCC must be allowed to execute their mandates without undue interference.

As the investigation progresses, the twin demands of transparency and due process will likely remain central to public debate, underscoring the importance of clear communication by all parties — legal authorities, the media and political actors alike. The final determination of allegations against Malami, should they result in charges, will ultimately lie with the judiciary, consistent with constitutional safeguards and the rule of law.

📩 Stone Reporters News | 🌍 stonereportersnews.com
✉️ info@stonereportersnews.com | 📘 Facebook: Stone Reporters | 🐦 X (Twitter): @StoneReportNew | 📸 Instagram: @stonereportersnews