Former Attorney-General of the Federation and Minister of Justice, Abubakar Malami, SAN, has called for the immediate stepping aside of the Chairman of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) from any role in an ongoing investigation involving him, citing alleged bias and conflict of interest.
In a statement released on Monday through his spokesman, Muhammad Doka, Malami accused the EFCC leadership of prejudice, personal vendetta and politically motivated persecution, which he linked to his recent defection to the African Democratic Congress (ADC).
The former justice minister alleged that his ongoing ordeal involved unlawful detention, trial by media and procedural irregularities, stressing that the investigation was not being driven by genuine law enforcement concerns but by longstanding personal hostility within the leadership of the anti-graft agency.
“I have been clearly prejudged and cannot receive a fair, objective or lawful investigation under the current leadership of the EFCC,” he stated.
Malami anchored his allegations on developments during his tenure as Attorney-General, when the Federal Government set up the Justice Ayo Salami Judicial Commission of Inquiry to probe allegations of corruption and abuse of office within the EFCC. He recalled that the current EFCC Chairman, Ola Olukoyede, served as Secretary to the commission, adding that the Salami Report—now publicly available—contained unfavourable findings against him.
According to Malami, the present investigation reflects “all the hallmarks of retaliatory persecution motivated by personal vengeance,” given the historical context of the relationship between him and the EFCC leadership.
Based on these concerns, he formally demanded that the EFCC Chairman recuse himself from the matter and appealed to the Attorney-General of the Federation, in his capacity as the Chief Law Officer of the country, to intervene to protect the integrity of the process.
“To restore credibility and public confidence, another appropriate law enforcement agency must handle this matter,” he said, warning that failure to take corrective steps could result in “serious institutional damage.”
The former AGF also demanded either his immediate arraignment before a competent court or his release within 24 hours, citing Sections 35(3), (4) and (5) of the 1999 Constitution (as amended). He maintained that only a court of law, and not what he described as a politically compromised investigative body, could lawfully determine his culpability or innocence.
Malami further raised alarm over what he described as attempts by the EFCC to rely on individuals who had been convicted by foreign courts and were currently serving criminal sentences abroad as potential witnesses. He characterised such a move as “desperate, scandalous and corrosive to the integrity of Nigeria’s criminal justice system,” arguing that such persons should ordinarily be subjects of extradition proceedings rather than prosecution witnesses.
The statement added that Malami’s legal team had begun taking formal steps to protect his constitutional rights, including applying for Certified True Copies of the petitions that triggered the investigation, as well as the EFCC’s investigation report, to enable him adequately prepare his defence.
“Let it be stated clearly: I seek no political settlement or inducement,” Malami said. “My singular objective is to clear my name openly and transparently before a court of competent jurisdiction. Nigeria must not become a republic where anti-corruption agencies are tools of political intimidation. The law must remain supreme—above politics, above power and above persons.”
What you should know
Abubakar Malami’s demand highlights growing tensions between political actors and Nigeria’s anti-graft institutions, especially when investigations involve former senior officials.
His claims raise questions about conflict of interest, due process and the independence of law enforcement agencies. At the heart of the controversy is whether personal history between investigators and suspects can undermine public confidence in anti-corruption efforts.
The call for recusal and possible transfer of the case to another agency underscores broader concerns about transparency, accountability and the politicisation of corruption probes in Nigeria.
