Justice Emeka Nwite of the Federal High Court in Abuja on Wednesday granted bail of N500 million each to former Attorney General of the Federation and Minister of Justice, Abdulaziz Malami, his wife and their son, Abdulaziz, imposing stringent conditions for their release.
The court further ruled that each of the defendants must produce two sureties in the same sum. The sureties are required to own landed property in Asokoro, Maitama or Gwarinpa areas of Abuja.
Justice Nwite further directed that all the defendants must deposit their international passports and other travel documents with the court.
The judge ordered that the property documents presented by the sureties be verified by the Deputy Chief Registrar of the court, while the sureties must also swear to affidavits of means.
Malami was additionally barred from travelling outside the country without the court’s permission.
The court also directed the defendants and their sureties to submit two recent passport photographs each to the court registry.
Pending the fulfilment of the bail conditions, Justice Nwite ordered that Malami be remanded at the Kuje Correctional Centre.
The court fixed February 17 for the commencement of trial in the corruption case.
The Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) had filed a 16-count charge against Malami, his wife and son over alleged money laundering involving about N9 billion, New Daily Prime reported
It was also reported that the Federal Capital Territory High Court in Abuja, on December 18, 2025, upheld Malami’s continued detention by the EFCC.
Malami has remained in the custody of the anti-graft agency since December 8 after he allegedly failed to meet the administrative bail conditions granted by the commission.
Justice Babangida Hassan, who dismissed Malami’s application for bail at the time, ruled that the former minister’s detention was lawful.
Quoting Section 35 of the Constitution, Justice Hassan held that the Administration of Criminal Justice Act (ACJA) provides for detention under a valid remand order, stating that granting the application would amount to “asking this court to sit as an appellate court over” an existing order.
