On November 28, 2025, the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) formally invited Abubakar Malami, SAN — former Attorney-General of the Federation and Minister of Justice — to appear before the agency as part of an inquiry into the recovery of the long-contested Sani Abacha loot. The case has since triggered intense media coverage, speculation, and debates across Nigeria’s political and public discourse.
Now, Malami has broken his silence — rejecting all allegations of wrongdoing. This blog post provides a detailed breakdown of his response, the facts as presented, and why, according to him, the accusations amount to nothing more than a baseless narrative of duplication and political witch-hunt.
What EFCC Is Alleging — And The Charges
According to reports, the EFCC’s inquiry centers on what it describes as a “duplication” in the recovery of the $310 million Abacha loot (which, with interest, is said to have grown to approximately $322.5 million).
Specifically, the agency is probing whether — after a Swiss lawyer, Enrico Monfrini, allegedly concluded recovery efforts prior to 2015 — Malami, upon assuming office, re-engaged other lawyers to duplicate the recovery process and thereby create a pathway for “kickbacks.” The underlying accusations:
Abuse of office. That Malami misused his official capacity to re-initiate a completed recovery process, thereby undermining transparency and duplicating work for personal or political gain.
Money laundering. That the dual recovery record amounts to illicit enrichment or mismanagement of public funds.
Given the gravity of these charges — especially coming from Nigeria’s premier anti-graft agency — public concern is understandably high.
Malami’s Response: “Baseless, Illogical and Wholly Devoid of Substance”
Malami’s rebuttal, issued through his media aide, labelled the EFCC’s allegations as entirely unfounded.
At the heart of his argument is a simple, but crucial, legal and factual point: the recovery of illicit funds cannot be considered complete until the money is physically lodged into the Federation Account.
According to Malami:
As of 2016 — when the government re-activated efforts to reclaim the Abacha funds — no such lodgement had been made. That means there was no “completed recovery” to duplicate.
In a telling detail that undermines the EFCC’s narrative: in December 2016, several lawyers — including Monfrini himself — applied to be engaged for the same recovery. If Monfrini had truly concluded the recovery in or before 2015, it would make no sense for him to re-apply two years later.
On top of that, Monfrini had demanded a $5 million upfront “on-account” deposit plus a 40 percent success fee (later reduced to 20 percent). These terms were rejected because they ran contrary to established government policy, which prohibits upfront payments and caps success fees at five percent.
Instead, the government engaged a Nigerian law firm on an all-inclusive 5 percent success-fee basis — a decision which, according to Malami, resulted in substantial savings for the country.
At an average exchange rate of ₦1,600 per US dollar, those savings translate roughly to between ₦76.8 billion and ₦179.2 billion.
What the Recovery Was Used For — Two Distinct Tranches
To further dispel the notion of duplication, Malami clarified that the Abacha loot recoveries under his tenure came in distinct tranches, separated by time, origin, and intended use.
The first tranche — $322.5 million repatriated from Switzerland (2017–2018) — was channelled into the National Social Investment Programme (NSIP), specifically the Conditional Cash Transfer scheme. That deployment, he says, was monitored by the World Bank and civil-society organisations to ensure transparency and accountability.
The second tranche — about $321 million recovered from the Island of Jersey in 2020, after collaboration with United States and Swiss authorities — was earmarked for major infrastructure projects. Among these are the Lagos–Ibadan Expressway, the Abuja–Kano Road, and the Second Niger Bridge.
Malami insists that conflating these separate recoveries — or treating them as part of a single, duplicated recovery process — is misleading and ignores documentary evidence as well as actual deployment records.
Transparency, Public Interest and Legal Discretion
In defending his actions, Malami invoked the constitutional discretion vested in the Attorney-General of the Federation when it comes to recovery of illicit funds. He argued that his decisions were made “strictly in the public interest” and in pursuit of justice, not personal gain.
The choice to reject Monfrini’s upfront demand and steep success fee, and to instead hire a Nigerian firm under a modest success-fee model, was portrayed as a responsible exercise of that discretion — one that prioritized national interest over personal or third-party enrichment.
Malami’s narrative suggests that what the EFCC frames as duplication is, in fact, a carefully managed, legally sound, and cost-saving exercise — consistent with due process and public accountability.
The Aftermath: EFCC Invitation, Investigation & Public Reaction
Malami confirmed that he received the EFCC invitation on November 28, 2025, and publicly committed to honouring the summons — affirming his commitment to transparency and accountability.
On November 29, after presenting himself to the EFCC, he was temporarily released, with indication that further engagement sessions would follow as the investigation progresses.
Since then, multiple media outlets have quoted him dismissing the allegations as baseless, illogical, and devoid of substance.
Yet, as reported recently, the EFCC has reportedly seized his international passport and mandated that he report daily to its Abuja headquarters throughout December 2025 — underscoring the seriousness of the probe, which may also touch on additional recoveries (e.g., a purported $490 million Abacha-linked sum secured through Mutual Legal Assistance Treaties, according to some sources).
As of now, the full scope and findings of the EFCC’s investigation remain opaque.
Bigger Picture: What This Means for Nigeria’s Anti-Corruption Drive
The showdown between Malami and the EFCC — especially over high-profile, politically sensitive asset recoveries — raises deeper questions about governance, accountability, and institutional integrity in Nigeria.
First: It re-opens scrutiny over how recovery of looted assets is managed — the criteria for engagement of recovery agents, the fee structures, timelines, oversight, and eventual deployment of funds.
Second: It underlines the complexity of proving “duplication” or “improper recovery” — especially when recovery efforts span years, involve multiple tranches, different jurisdictions, and various agents.
Third: The case may set legal and policy precedents for how future recoveries, especially of looted assets, should be handled — possibly influencing government guidelines on lawyer engagements, success fees, transparency, and public disclosure.
Finally: It highlights the political dimension of asset-recovery investigations in Nigeria. What begins as a technical audit or probe often becomes a litmus test for broader struggles over power, turf, and reputation.
For citizens and stakeholders — civil society groups, media, policy-makers — the need for full transparency, public auditing, and accountability is more urgent than ever.
Conclusion: The Stakes — And Why This Story Matters
In his statement, Malami declared: “The allegations of money laundering and abuse of office concerning the $322.5 million Abacha loot remain baseless, illogical and entirely devoid of substance.”
Whether the EFCC will — after its extended investigation — reach a different conclusion remains to be seen. What is clear, however, is that this episode draws a sharp spotlight on Nigeria’s continuing challenge: how to recover illicit funds, ensure they benefit the public, and prevent those processes from becoming tools for political vendetta.
For Nigeria to regain public trust in its anti-corruption institutions, such recoveries must be handled with the greatest standards of transparency, documentation, and public accountability. All eyes are now on the EFCC as the December 2025 sessions unfold — and on every Nigerian stakeholder who believes in justice, fairness, and good governance.
0 Comments