By Yusuf Danjuma Yunusa

A Federal High Court sitting in Maitama, Abuja and presided over by Justice Joyce Abdulmalik on Monday, April 20, 2026 admitted nine exhibits against a former Attorney-General of the Federation and Minister of Justice, Abubakar Malami, SAN, alongside his wife, Hajia Bashir Asabe, and his son, Abubakar Abdulaziz Malami.

The exhibits were presented before the court by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission, EFCC, in its ongoing trial of the former Minister and some family members.

The EFCC is prosecuting the defendants on an amended 16-count charge bordering on conspiracy, procuring, disguising, concealing and laundering proceeds of unlawful activities to the tune of N8,713,923,759.49 (Eight Billion, Seven Hundred and Thirteen Million, Nine Hundred and Twenty-Three Thousand, Seven Hundred and Fifty-Nine Naira, Forty-Nine Kobo), contrary to the provisions of the Money Laundering (Prevention and Prohibition) Act, 2022.

The exhibits, which are documentary in nature, were tendered through the fourth prosecution witness, Mashelia Arhyel Bata, a compliance officer with Zenith Bank Plc.

Led in evidence by prosecution counsel, J. S. Okutepa, SAN, the witness told the court that, in the course of his official duties, he received correspondence from the EFCC requesting documents relating to several accounts linked to the defendants and associated entities.

“I work as a compliance officer with Zenith Bank, Maitama branch. My duty includes receiving correspondence from law enforcement agencies and responding accordingly,” he said.

Bata further disclosed that the bank complied with EFCC’s requests by providing both soft and hard copies of documents relating to accounts belonging to the defendants and companies such as Rayhaan Hotels Limited, Rayhaan Bustan Agro Allied Limited, Nashab Limited, Golden Age Global Ventures, and Rahamaniyya Properties Limited.

“My lord, the documents are nine,” he stated, confirming his ability to identify them when presented in court.

Upon application by Okutepa, the court admitted the documents, dated between July 19, 2024 and March 12, 2026, as Exhibits D1 to D9, despite an initial objection by defence counsel, J. B. Daudu, SAN, who noted that “the dates are almost all in March.”

Continuing his testimony under further examination by prosecution counsel, Ekele Iheanacho, SAN, the witness provided details of transactions contained in the exhibits.

He identified Exhibit D1 as containing account opening documents and statements for accounts belonging to Abubakar Malami and A.A. Malami & Co, including a naira account and a dollar account.

According to him, the statement of account for one of the accounts covered the period from January 1, 2012 to December 31, 2023.

The witness confirmed that the accounts were active between 2015 and 2023, noting that “there were transfers within that period.”

He further revealed that total credits into one of the accounts stood at N383,637,21.55 between January 1, 2016 and December 31, 2023, while total credits from January 1, 2012 to December 31, 2015 amounted to N560,506,465.12.

On debits, he stated that N384,322,120.85 was recorded between 2016 and 2023, while N571,891,174.08 was debited between 2012 and 2015.

Giving further breakdown of transactions, the witness told the court that on November 11, 2020, the account received N194,791,608.00 from New Horizons Limited, and on June 24, 2022, it received N622,500,000.00 from Rayhaan Bustan Agro Allied Limited.

He added that on July 1 and July 7, 2022, the account received N250 million each from Rayhaan Hotels Limited, while on December 22, 2022, there was an inflow of N500 million linked to Rayhaan Bustan Agro Allied Limited.

Continuing in that format, the witness identified so many transactions running into billions.

Following the testimony, the defence counsel, J.B Daudu SAN sought an adjournment to enable him study the exhibits and prepare for cross-examination.

“My lord, we need time to go through the nine exhibits tendered,” Daudu said.

Justice Abdulmalik subsequently adjourned the matter till May 13, 2026, for continuation of trial.

Ilorin Emirate Descendants’ Progressive Union (IEDPU) Kano Branch, a premier socio-cultural, non-governmental association dedicated to the unity, development, cultural preservation, and welfare of its members, is poised to lay the foundation stone for its multi-million naira state-of-the-art secretariat on 25th April 2026.

In a joint Statement released on Monday by the Public Relations Officer,Sheikh Abdulrazaq Shehu Aladire and the Vice Chairman of the Union, who is also the chairman of Foundation Laying Committee,Mallam AbdulQuadri Ahmed Firdaus,the Union said the occasion represents a monumental leap and defining moment in its pursuit of excellence.

Part of the statement read,”This Foundation Laying Ceremony for the New Secretariat Complex Project marks a significant milestone in enhancing and providing the necessary infrastructure to boost our activities and better support our members and stakeholders”.

According to the statement,”The ceremony will commence by 10:00 a.m. at the Union’s construction site located at No. 53, King’s College Street, Kurna Asabe, Dantata Estate, Kano. This new facility, often referred to as the “IEDPU Kano Complex,” comprises: a mosque, an Islamic school, a secretariat, and a guest house. It represents a strategic investment in the future of the Association and its members.”

The foundation stone laying will be performed by Alh. Dr. Surajudeen Adewuyi Usman Mohammad (Asamu 1) as the Special Guest of Honour, along with Engineer Suleiman Kale Kawu (Dan Iya Ilorin Emirate), Alh. Abdulrazaq Abubakar Toyin (Founder, AATU University), Alh. Ibrahim Tajudeen Adeta (CEO, Apex Garden Abuja), and Alh. Kazeem Omotayo Akande (Agba Akin Yoruba Kano) the statement added.

“This foundation stone laying ceremony is more than just building a physical structure; it embodies the dedication, commitment, and ambitious spirit of our members. All stakeholders, members of other associations, and media representatives are invited to join us in celebrating this historic milestone.”the statement concluded

Prominent legal practitioners in Kano have cautioned proponents behind a purported lawsuit seeking to halt the legislative processes leading to the screening and confirmation of Murtala Sule Garo for the vacant seat of deputy governor to desist henceforth.

Besides, the senior lawyers submitted that seeking to interject the constitutional responsibility of an independent arm of government does not only amount to exercise in futility but also premature and invalidate standard practice.

The lawyers were reacting to a notice filed by one Kuliyya Muhammad Salihu and two others before Kano state house of assembly seeking to stop the screening of Murtala Sule Garo, a leading nominee for the position of Deputy Governor in Kano.

The petitioners who claimed to have file a suit before a Kano high concerning the nomination of Garo, urged the assembly to suspend any attempt to carry out the legislative processes and procedures for the confirmation of the former Commissioner for Local Government Affairs.

In their separate submission however, Abdul Adamu Fagge, a Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN) and prominent human rights lawyer Abba Hikima, insisted those claiming to have file a law suit against Garo are simply desperate to interfere with the selection process.

Abdul Adamu Fagge, SAN questioned the procedural and factual foundation of the case being peddling by the petitioners, insisting that courts cannot act on uncertainty or assumptions.City & Local Guides.

He argued that it is unclear whether any formal screening process has actually commenced, stressing that judicial intervention must be based on established facts rather than speculation. He further maintained that court proceedings require properly verified processes and cannot be grounded in media reports or unconfirmed claims.

Fagge SAN also warned against attempts to interfere with the constitutional functions of the legislature, stressing that each arm of government must be allowed to operate within its defined mandate.

In a separate but related perspective, Barrister Abba Hikima also argued that the matter raises issues of jurisdiction and constitutional boundaries, noting that courts should be cautious in interfering with legislative processes.

He described the case as having political undertones, arguing that legal processes are sometimes used to advance political interests.

Hikima maintained that the State House of Assembly derives its powers from the Constitution and cannot be restrained by the court in the exercise of its legislative functions at this stage.

He warned that allowing such intervention could open the door to constant judicial interference in legislative activities, potentially disrupting governance.

Although the two lawyers approached the matter from different legal angles—one focusing on procedural validity and the other on jurisdictional limits—their views converge in a way that casts doubt on the strength of the suit seeking to halt the screening process.