What happened — the facts as reported
Over the past week Malami publicly complained that his interrogation by the EFCC was pre-judged and tainted by media harassment and procedural abuse, and called on the EFCC chair to step aside from any probe involving him. He also insisted the questioning related to alleged duplication in the accounting for recovered Abacha loot rather than any terrorism-related offence. These comments and appeals for recusal have been widely reported.
Independent reporting shows Malami spent successive nights in EFCC custody while the agency questioned him over alleged irregularities linked to recovered Abacha funds; the former minister has denied wrongdoing and framed the probe as politically motivated. The EFCC has been active in pursuing other high-profile figures — a pattern of investigations and arrest warrants for former ministers and officials has been evident in recent months — underscoring that the commission is not hesitating to investigate senior public officers across the political spectrum.
Civil society commentary and opinion pieces have urged that the EFCC proceed with investigations regardless of the theatrics; some voices argue that public officials who exercised prosecutorial and executive power cannot now claim protection from the same rule of law that they once enforced.
Why the EFCC should proceed — the legal and moral case
1. Public office equals public accountability. The Attorney-General is the principal law officer of the federation. That position gives access to state instruments and confidential processes. When questions are raised about how that power was exercised — especially around the high-profile recovery and management of the Abacha loot — the public is entitled to answers. This is not vengeance; it is accountability. The Constitution and criminal statutes exist to be applied equally.
2. Procedural fairness does not mean inaction. Malami’s claim of pre-judgment must be addressed with facts: allow him legal representation, allow independent observation where appropriate, and move any contested procedural issues to court where they can be resolved on principle. But allegations of procedural abuse do not, by themselves, bar investigation. Lawful investigation with due process protects both the suspect’s rights and the public interest.
3. Precedent and consistency matter. The EFCC has pursued other senior figures recently, with arrest warrants and firm investigative steps used against former ministers and officials. To be credible, anti-graft bodies must operate consistently: apply the same rules and standards to all, irrespective of political connection. Where evidence is found, the next step — prosecution before a competent court — is the proper remedy.
4. Transparency builds legitimacy. Given the political sensitivities, the EFCC should publish a clear, legally defensible account of why it is investigating, what laws may have been contravened, and what safeguards are in place to protect due process — without prejudicing a trial. This reduces the space for politicised narratives and reinforces public confidence.
Addressing Malami’s central claims
Claim: The EFCC is on a political vendetta. This is a serious allegation. If Malami has evidence of selective targeting or collusion, he should bring it before the court or an independent oversight body. Allegations alone do not negate the need for inquiry; such claims should be investigated in parallel where credible evidence exists.
Claim: He is being denied a fair, objective and lawful investigation. Procedural complaints should be documented and, where necessary, litigated. Courts, not tweets and press statements, are the correct venue to resolve disputes about investigation fairness. Meanwhile, the EFCC should be mindful of legal limits and ensure full access to counsel and records where required.
The political angle — why scepticism is healthy but insufficient
It would be naïve to pretend that high-profile corruption probes never intersect with politics in Nigeria. They sometimes do. Healthy scepticism from the public and from opposition parties is therefore appropriate. But scepticism should not be an automatic stay of criminal process. The solution is stronger institutions and transparent procedures: independent prosecutors, robust judicial oversight, and active civil society monitoring. That combination makes both the investigation and its outcomes more credible.
Some political actors and parties have already weighed in, accusing either the EFCC of overreach or suggesting political motivation behind restrictions on Malami’s activities. These reactions underscore the need for the EFCC to be swift, lawful, and transparent in its next steps.
Practical steps the EFCC and judiciary should take
1. Publish a short, factual statement about the scope of the enquiry (without disclosing ongoing investigative secrets) to reduce misinformation.
2. Afford Malami full legal protections — access to counsel, clear notice of allegations, timely applications to court on any procedural complaints.
3. If evidence exists, file charges promptly and let an impartial court adjudicate. Long, secretive investigations that never reach court feed conspiracy theories and erode trust.
4. Invite independent monitoring from civil society or an agreed oversight mechanism to observe strictly-defined aspects of process — where appropriate and without prejudicing a trial.
5. Protect whistleblowers and witnesses who provide credible information; ensure their evidence is corroborated and admissible.
Why this matters for Nigeria’s future
Allowing high office to be exercised with impunity corrodes faith in the state, deters investment, and deepens cynicism among citizens. Conversely, conducting investigations in a way that is principled, transparent and bound by law strengthens democracy and deters abuse. The ideal outcome is not vindictiveness but the rule of law: either clear exoneration in open court, or conviction on proven criminal charges after a fair trial.
Conclusion — prosecution if warranted, transparency always
Abubakar Malami’s sworn duties and the extraordinary powers that come with high office require a full accounting where evidence suggests impropriety. His public complaints of bias deserve adjudication, but they should not be used as a shield to prevent legitimate inquiry. The EFCC must proceed — lawfully and transparently — and, if the evidence supports criminal liability, pursue prosecution. In every case the standard must be the same: proof beyond reasonable doubt in a competent court. Only then will justice be done, and public trust — the cornerstone of democratic governance — preserved.
0 Comments