By Isaac Aregbesola
Abuja, Dec. 14, 2025 (NAN) – The Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) has provided a detailed rebuttal to claims made by the detained former Attorney-General of the Federation and Minister of Justice, Abubakar Malami (SAN), clarifying that his continued detention stems from a failure to meet provisional bail conditions, not from political retaliation.
The commission’s statement, issued by its Spokesperson, Dele Oyewale, directly addresses Malami’s assertion that his bail was revoked for attending a political gathering in Kebbi State, labeling such claims as “false” and “ridiculous.”
The Anatomy of Administrative Bail: A Provisional Privilege, Not a Right
Central to the EFCC’s explanation is the nature of the bail granted to Malami. “Administrative bail is a discretionary, temporary reprieve,” Oyewale stated. This is a critical distinction from court-ordered bail. Administrative bail is an internal mechanism used by law enforcement agencies to release a suspect during an ongoing investigation, contingent upon strict adherence to set conditions. It can be rescinded if those conditions are violated, a point the EFCC emphasizes Malami, as a former chief law officer, should understand.
Malami was granted this provisional bail on November 28 following a brief interrogation, pending the conclusion of investigations and potential arraignment. The bail was hinged on five specific conditions, which the EFCC asserts he has “neither met… nor shown readiness to keep faith with.” While the statement did not publicly detail all five conditions, their non-fulfillment forms the legal bedrock for his current detention.
A Timeline of Non-Compliance and Deferred Appearances
The EFCC outlined a sequence of events demonstrating Malami’s alleged non-cooperation:
- Nov. 28: Malami is interrogated, granted administrative bail with five conditions, and signs an acknowledgment.
- Dec. 1: His scheduled return for further interrogation is deferred at his request.
- Dec. 4: In a letter citing ill-health, Malami formally requests a postponement. The EFCC grants this despite the unmet bail conditions but notes he provided no medical report or credible proof of illness.
- Dec. 8: Malami is invited again and subsequently detained “pending compliance with the outstanding bail conditions.”
This timeline is crucial, as the EFCC frames the detention not as a sudden revocation, but as the consequence of a process where latitude and accommodation were extended without reciprocal compliance from the suspect.
Dismissing Allegations of Political Motive
The commission forcefully rejected the narrative of political persecution. Oyewale described as “strange” and “bogus” the insinuation that Malami was barred from media interviews or political activities in Kebbi State. “The EFCC has no interest in the political affiliation of its suspects,” he asserted, aiming to separate the legal process from the political context surrounding a high-profile figure from the previous administration.
This rebuttal is significant in Nigeria’s often-charged political atmosphere, where anti-corruption investigations are frequently framed as partisan witch-hunts. By focusing on procedural non-compliance, the EFCC seeks to anchor the case in administrative and legal grounds rather than political ones.
Legal Implications and the Path Forward
The standoff highlights the tension between the powers of law enforcement agencies during investigations and the rights of suspects. For Malami, the immediate path to release is clear, per the EFCC: “comply with the bail conditions he acknowledged and signed.” His legal team may potentially seek judicial intervention to challenge the detention if they believe the administrative bail conditions are unreasonable or being unfairly applied.
For the public and observers, the case serves as a high-profile lesson on the limitations and responsibilities attached to administrative bail. It underscores that such release is conditional and provisional, heavily dependent on the suspect’s ongoing cooperation with the investigative process.
The EFCC’s detailed public clarification is itself a strategic move, an attempt to control the narrative and demonstrate procedural rigor in a case that is undoubtedly being scrutinized by the legal community, political actors, and the public alike.
(NAN)
IAA/KAE
====÷====
Edited by Kadiri Abdulrahman
About the Author
