A new development unfolded on Friday in the trial of former Attorney-General of the Federation, Abubakar Malami, as a Federal High Court in Abuja declared that the bail earlier granted to him no longer subsists following the reassignment of the case.
The court ruled that since proceedings had commenced afresh before it, all prior actions in the matter — including the bail approved by Justice Emeka Nwite — were legally extinguished. Consequently, the defendants must file a new bail application.
The Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) had instituted a 16-count charge against the former AGF, accusing him of money laundering and unlawful acquisition of assets valued at over N8.7 billion.
At Friday’s proceedings, the prosecution counsel, J.S. Okutepa, announced his appearance and requested that the defendants take their pleas on the amended 16-count charge.
Malami, alongside his son, Abdulaziz, and his wife, Asabe, pleaded not guilty to the revised charges. After the pleas were entered, the prosecution asked the court to set a date for trial.
Counsel to the defence, J.B. Daudu (SAN), urged the court to maintain the earlier bail terms granted by Justice Nwite, contending that the Federal High Court is a single entity and that the defendants had already been admitted to bail.
ALSO READ
In response, the prosecution acknowledged that bail had previously been granted but maintained that the present court possessed the authority to either uphold the former conditions or introduce new ones.
He added that although he would not insist on the matter, the court should impose terms that would guarantee the defendants’ presence throughout the trial.
The earlier bail conditions required each defendant to post N500 million bail with one surety apiece, each of whom must own property in Maitama or Asokoro. They were also mandated to deposit two international passports each with the court, while the residences of the sureties were to be verified by the Assistant Chief Registrar.
Delivering her ruling, the presiding judge, Justice Joyce Abdulmalik, held that where a case is reassigned and begins anew, previous proceedings are nullified in law.
Although the defence admitted that no formal bail application had been filed before the court, it sought to make an oral application. The court, however, refused and directed counsel to submit a formal application and serve it on the prosecution. The judge indicated that a short adjournment would be granted for its hearing.
The defence further told the court that fixing a trial date might be challenging, stating that the first and second defendants were in the custody of the Department of State Services and could not be reached.
The court responded that it could not speculate on the status of any party, stressing that it was the prosecution’s responsibility to ensure the defendants were present in court. The prosecution countered that the defendants were not in its custody and that it lacked the authority to compel the DSS to produce them.
Justice Abdulmalik subsequently adjourned the case to March 6 for the hearing of the fresh bail application and the commencement of trial.
She ordered that Malami and his son be remanded at the Kuje Correctional Centre, while his wife was to be held at the Suleja Correctional Centre pending further proceedings.
