THE Federal High Court in Abuja has struck out a motion filed by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) seeking the forfeiture of properties allegedly linked to former Minister of Power, Engr. Saleh Mamman, who is challenging his conviction at the Court of Appeal.
News Point Nigeria reports that Justice James Omotosho struck out the EFCC’s motion, dated July 29, 2026, and filed under Section 20 of the EFCC Act 2004, Section 321 of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act 2015, and Section 6(6) of the 1999 Constitution, in charge No. FHC/ABJ/CR/273/2024, after prosecution counsel, Abba Mohammed, formally withdrew it.
Mohammed told the court that the decision to withdraw the motion followed Mamman’s appeal against the entire judgment at the Court of Appeal, Abuja Division.
The motion had sought a consequential order permanently forfeiting to the Federal Government properties which the EFCC allegedly traced to Mamman after his conviction and sentencing.
Defence counsel, Femi Atteh, did not oppose the withdrawal, and Justice Omotosho granted the application as prayed, striking out the motion in a brief ruling.
Mamman was convicted by Justice Omotosho on 12 counts tied to an alleged N33.8 billion fraud and handed consecutive prison terms totalling 75 years.
He has now approached the Court of Appeal through a notice of appeal dated May 26, 2026, filed by his legal team led by Femi Atteh, SAN, asking the appellate court to quash the conviction and discharge and acquit him.
The appeal rests on 18 grounds, with the former minister’s legal team raising several challenges to the trial and conviction.
Central among the grounds is a claim that Mamman’s right to fair hearing was violated when judgment was delivered in his absence on May 7, 2026, despite an earlier adjournment to June 9, 2026, for judgment.
His team argues that the date was abridged without any hearing notice being served on him, that he never waived his right to be present, and that this breached Section 36 of the 1999 Constitution and Section 352(4) of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act 2015.
Other grounds raised by his lawyers include the claim that the trial judge blocked his subpoenaed witness, Abdulkareem Ozi Ibrahim, who was a Director, Special Projects Accounts, in the Office of the Accountant-General of the Federation, from testifying in his defence.
They also argued that the prosecution was improperly allowed to reopen examination-in-chief of the same witness after it had already closed its case and the matter had been adjourned for cross-examination.
The defence further argued that the conviction relied substantially on uncorroborated accomplice evidence and on counts 7–12, to which no plea was ever taken.
Another ground of appeal is that the trial court wrongly found that funds from the Zungeru and Mambilla Hydroelectric power projects were diverted for Mamman’s personal use, when the funds were domiciled with the Central Bank of Nigeria and controlled by the Office of the Accountant-General of the Federation, and he was neither an approving authority nor a signatory to the accounts.
Mamman’s legal team also contended that key findings rested on hearsay, disregarded documentary evidence and amounted to speculation.
They argued further that the court improperly shifted the burden of proof onto him by holding that he failed to explain the source of funds used to purchase a property at No. 12 Lungi Street, Wuse II, Abuja.
The appeal also challenges the admission of Mamman’s extra-judicial statements, with his lawyers arguing that the statements were admitted without compliance with Sections 15 and 17 of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act 2015, including the absence of any audio-visual recording of the statements.
His team also alleged that the trial judge showed clear bias against him throughout the proceedings, thereby occasioning a miscarriage of justice.
The conviction and 75-year sentence have drawn strong criticism from Mamman’s family and legal representatives, who have described elements of the trial as troubling.
They pointed to the accelerated delivery and service of the judgment as particularly concerning, alongside earlier defence complaints over disputed documentation, witness contradictions, disclosure issues and what they called weak evidentiary links—concerns they say warrant further legal scrutiny.