BY any measure, the unfolding legal battle involving a former Attorney-General of the Federation, Abubakar Malami, has reopened an old but unresolved national conversation: where exactly does appreciation end and corruption begin for those entrusted with public power? As News Point Nigeria observes, the case is no longer only about properties, court filings, or technical objections; it has evolved into a wider test of Nigeria’s laws on gifts, privilege, and the ethical limits of public office.
At the centre of the controversy is Malami’s decision to formally challenge the interim forfeiture of several properties seized by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC). The seizure followed an order issued on January 6 by Justice Emema Nwite of the Federal High Court in Abuja, who approved the interim forfeiture of 57 properties suspected to be proceeds of unlawful activities. The assets were said to be linked to Malami and two of his sons, Abdulaziz and Abiru Rahman.
Granting the EFCC’s ex parte application, the court ruled that the properties were reasonably suspected to have been acquired with proceeds of unlawful activities and should be temporarily forfeited to the Federal Government. Justice Nwite also directed the anti-graft agency to publish the interim forfeiture order in a national daily, inviting interested parties to appear before the court within 14 days to show cause why the forfeiture should not be made permanent.
Malami, however, insists that the process was fundamentally flawed. In a motion on notice filed on January 27 through his legal team led by senior advocate Joseph Daudu, the former attorney-general accused the EFCC of obtaining the interim order through suppression of material facts and misrepresentation. He urged the court to dismiss the suit entirely, warning that it could lead to duplicative litigation and conflicting judicial outcomes. Beyond procedure, Malami argued that the action violated his constitutional rights to property, presumption of innocence, and family life.
His challenge narrowed the focus to three specific properties listed in the EFCC’s application, items numbered 9, 18 and 48. These include a residential property in Nasarawa GRA, Kano; a duplex with boys’ quarters in Wuse II, Abuja; and a foundation building linked to his late father, Kadi Malami. According to Malami, one of the properties is held in trust for his father’s estate, while the others were lawfully acquired and duly declared.
In a detailed, 14-ground argument, Daudu maintained that there was no prima facie evidence linking the three properties to any criminal activity or identifiable offence. He said the assets had been declared in Malami’s asset declaration forms submitted to the Code of Conduct Bureau (CCB) over the years, insisting that their values and sources were clearly stated.
To reinforce this claim, Malami’s defence rests heavily on his declared income streams. In his asset declaration filed with the CCB, Malami listed earnings from official sources, including income from salaries, estacodes, severance allowances, and other legitimate earnings tied to public service.
The declaration also detailed sitting allowances received from his roles as a board or committee member of the Federal Judicial Service Commission, the Federal Capital Territory Judicial Service Commission, the Legal Practitioners’ Privileges Committee, and a high-powered presidential committee.
In addition, the former Attorney-General declared income generated from the disposal of assets, turnover from business activities, and funds described as loans advanced to businesses. Most controversially, he also declared a substantial sum described as “traditional gifts” received from personal friends.
Malami’s counsel further explained that additional income was realised from the launch and public presentation of a book authored by the former AGF, titled “Contemporary Issues on Nigerian Law and Practice: Thorny Terrains in Traversing the Nigerian Justice Sector – My Travails and Triumphs.” According to the defence, these combined streams of income sufficiently explain the acquisition of the disputed properties and demonstrate that they were lawfully obtained.
However, it is the declaration of nearly ₦1 billion as “traditional gifts” that has ignited widespread outrage and condemnation across the country, shifting public attention away from property titles and court processes to a more troubling ethical question: can such gifts ever be lawful for a serving public officer?
Reacting to the disclosure, a retired judicial civil servant, Malam Inuwa Dan Gari, described it as deeply disturbing. He said it was particularly troubling that a former Attorney-General of the Federation, Nigeria’s chief law officer and a Senior Advocate of Nigeria would openly admit to receiving gifts of such magnitude while in office.
“This is not a minister of environment or health,” he said. “This is the chief law officer of the federation, someone who knows and understands the law. To publicly admit receiving close to ₦1 billion as gifts while in office is deeply unsettling.”
Another senior citizen, Emmanuel Igbokwe, took the argument further, insisting that such an admission would have brought swift consequences in many other jurisdictions.
“In countries like China, Russia, Ghana or South Africa, that would have been the end of the case,” he said. “The man would have been jailed immediately. How can an Attorney-General admit to receiving ₦1 billion in gifts while in office? It is grossly absurd.”
While the public debate intensifies, the case itself has struggled to gain procedural momentum. When it came up in court on January 27, it could not proceed because it was not listed on the cause list.
The matter had been handled during the court’s vacation, and with the vacation matters concluded, the presiding judge returned the file to the Chief Judge for reassignment. Still, the courtroom was not empty. Several lawyers were present, having filed processes on behalf of clients seeking to halt the final forfeiture proceedings.
Beyond the courtroom, darker clouds hover over the former attorney-general. Malami is facing a separate money laundering charge filed by the EFCC and is reportedly being detained by the Department of State Services over allegations bordering on terrorism financing. These parallel investigations have intensified scrutiny of his explanations particularly his reliance on gifts as a legitimate source of wealth.
Legal practitioners insist that Nigerian law leaves little room for ambiguity. Former chairman of the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA), Garki Branch, Obioma Ezenwobodo, said there are clear laws prohibiting public officers from receiving gifts where such benefits could influence official conduct or create conflicts of interest. If the allegations are proven, he said, defending them would be extremely difficult.
Another lawyer, Nnamdi Ahaaiwe, pointed to the 1999 Constitution, specifically the Fifth Schedule, Part I of the Code of Conduct for Public Officers. The provision expressly bars public officials from asking for or accepting any property or benefit in connection with their official duties. Gifts from contractors, business entities, or persons dealing with government are presumed to be improper unless proven otherwise.
While limited exceptions exist for personal gifts from relatives or friends under customary circumstances, ceremonial gifts are deemed to belong to the institution not the individual officer.
Nigeria’s anti-corruption laws reinforce this position. The Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Act criminalises the acceptance of gratification, broadly defined to include gifts, loans, or advantages intended to influence official actions. Legal experts note that the law does not only target crude bribery but also subtler exchanges cloaked as goodwill.
Civil society organisations have echoed this concern. The Civil Society Legislative Advocacy Centre (CISLAC) has called for explicit limits on what public servants may receive while in office. Its executive director, Auwal Rafsanjani, argued that gifts and favours obtained in the course of official duties amount to corruption and that Nigeria must draw a firm national line to protect public institutions.
From Kano, activist Akibu Hamisu described Malami’s claims as an attempt to normalise alleged illicit enrichment. He questioned the plausibility of reported earnings and warned that such explanations raise serious questions about accountability and compliance with anti-corruption laws. Even with allowances added, he argued, the figures being cited do not align with Nigeria’s approved remuneration framework.
More troubling, Hamisu said, is the reliance on gifts as justification. Who gave them? On what basis? And why were they not received before assuming public office? These are questions, he insisted, that demand rigorous scrutiny.
The debate also draws attention to official salary benchmarks set by the Revenue Mobilisation Allocation and Fiscal Commission, which reinforce how stark the contrast is between approved earnings and the figures now being discussed publicly.
Ultimately, the Malami case sits at the intersection of law, ethics, and public trust. As the courts sift through filings and arguments, the broader lesson remains unmistakable: Nigerian law does not treat gifts to public officers as innocent tokens.
In a system long scarred by corruption, such benefits are not just frowned upon, they are scrutinised, questioned, and, where necessary, punished. For Nigeria, and for those who serve in its highest offices, the message is stark and unambiguous: public power comes with strict limits, and the line between generosity and graft is neither vague nor negotiable.