The former Attorney-General of the Federation and Minister of Justice, Abubakar Malami, SAN, has alleged that operatives of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) carried out coordinated raids on his offices and private residences in Abuja and Kebbi State. The raids, Malami’s camp claims, occurred shortly after his team publicly referenced Chapter 9 of the Justice Ayo Salami Judicial Commission of Inquiry Report.

In a press release signed by Mohammed Bello Doka, Malami’s Special Assistant on Media, the office stated that the raids were conducted without prior notice and were “expressly directed at searching for documents allegedly connected to Chapter 9.” The statement described the development as “deeply alarming,” especially following a public call for the EFCC Chairman’s recusal on grounds of bias related to the same chapter.

Malami’s office warned that any harm to him or his staff would be “solely attributable to this pattern of conduct,” and urged Nigerians and the international community to question the timing and legality of the EFCC’s actions. Key questions raised included:

• Why did the raids occur immediately after public reference to Chapter 9?
• What authority justified searches focused on this chapter?
• Why resort to force and secrecy rather than due process?

The statement called on civil society organizations, professional bodies, and human rights groups to pressure the Federal Government, the Ministry of Justice, and the Office of the Attorney-General to release the Justice Ayo Salami Report, particularly Chapter 9, in the interest of transparency, accountability, and public confidence.

Malami’s team emphasized that he remains committed to submitting to a neutral and lawful judicial process, asserting that “intimidation, raids, and media trials cannot substitute for due process.”

The office further highlighted that Chapter 9 addresses the conduct and responsibilities of senior EFCC officials, and argued that current EFCC actions against Malami cannot reasonably be interpreted as neutral law enforcement. It stressed that the applicable legal standard is reasonable apprehension of bias, making recusal mandatory where such bias exists.

Malami’s camp reiterated that this is not a personal dispute but a constitutional issue, insisting on being tried only before a court of competent jurisdiction. As of this report, the EFCC had not responded publicly to the allegations.