Abubakar Malami and EFCC logo
The former southeast spokesman to President Bola Tinubu and Chairman of the forum of Former Members of Enugu State House of Assembly (FOF-MEHA), Hon. Josef Onoh has asked the former Attorney General of the Federation, Malami Abubakar Malami, to stop being hypocritical and blackmailing the Chairman of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) and face his ongoing investigation.
Onoh also reminded Malami that as the AGF, he never obeyed court orders and trashed Malami’s citing of the Justice Ayo Salami Judicial Commission of Inquiry Report, which he said gives him a waiver from probe.
In a statement he released from Paris, France, Onoh said that after carefully reviewing the recent statement issued by Malami in which he demanded the recusal of the EFCC Chairman, Ola Olukoyede, from the ongoing investigations involving him, it was not only hypocritical, pathetic, and unfortunate, but a desperate attempt to blackmail and scandalise the Chairman of EFCC.
Mr. Malami cited alleged conflicts arising from Chapter Nine of the Justice Ayo Salami Judicial Commission of Inquiry Report, claiming it creates a reasonable apprehension of bias and portrays the EFCC’s actions as a “personal vendetta.”
But Onoh said that “it’s particularly ironic—and revealing”—that former AGF Abubakar Malami now cries “personal vendetta” and “political persecution” against the EFCC.
“During his tenure as Attorney-General, Mr. Malami oversaw and defended several high-profile prosecutions that were widely criticised as politically motivated vendettas against opposition figures from the previous administration, often involving defiance of court orders and prolonged detentions without trial.
“It is the height of hypocrisy for former AGF Abubakar Malami to now accuse the EFCC of “personal vendetta” when he himself masterminded one of the most garrulous and vindictive campaigns to remove the former EFCC Acting Chairman, Ibrahim Magu, in 2020.
“In a brazen display of power abuse, Malami, as Attorney-General, personally drafted and forwarded multiple memos to President Muhammadu Buhari levelling over 22 weighty allegations against Magu, including diversion of recovered loots, insubordination, re-looting of assets, and gross misconduct. These accusations stemmed from reported clashes between Malami and Magu over control of seized assets and high-profile cases.
“On July 6, 2020, Magu was dramatically arrested on the streets of Abuja and detained. The following day, July 7, President Buhari suspended him, establishing the Justice Ayo Salami Judicial Commission of Inquiry—set up under Malami’s supervision—to probe the allegations.
“Malami refused to appear before the Salami Panel despite a subpoena, denying Magu the opportunity to confront his chief accuser. Critics, including members of the Presidential Advisory Committee Against Corruption (PACAC), described the episode as a ‘power play’ and ‘grudge war’ orchestrated by Malami, who exploited his proximity to the President to settle scores.
“Magu was never prosecuted or convicted on these allegations, yet his career was effectively ended. This aggressive, media-amplified pursuit exemplifies the very vendetta and persecution by power that Malami now falsely attributes to the current EFCC leadership.
“When Malami wielded prosecutorial authority, he showed no restraint in targeting perceived rivals. He cannot now demand kid-glove treatment or recusal simply because accountability has come knocking at his door.
In the case of Col. Sambo Dasuki (former National Security Adviser). Malami initially defended the Federal Government’s refusal to obey multiple court orders granting Dasuki bail, leading to over four years of detention despite judicial rulings. This was seen by critics as a clear case of executive disregard for the rule of law to settle political scores.
“Regards to Olisa Metuh (former PDP National Publicity Secretary). Metuh was prosecuted for allegedly receiving funds linked to the Dasuki arms scandal. His trial involved dramatic courtroom incidents, including health deteriorations, and was viewed by many as targeted harassment of a vocal PDP spokesman critical of the Buhari government.
“Same Malami masterminded the Proscription and handling of IPOB (Indigenous People of Biafra). Under Malami’s watch, IPOB was controversially declared a terrorist organisation, leading to the arrest and extraordinary rendition of its leader, Nnamdi Kanu. The aggressive pursuit, including defiance of bail conditions in Kanu’s case, was condemned as an attempt to suppress dissenting voices in the South-East.
“These actions exemplified the weaponisation of prosecutorial powers that Malami now decries when the tables are turned. Having wielded state authority without restraint against perceived political opponents, he cannot credibly demand special immunity or recusal today.
“The EFCC’s investigation into Malami must proceed without interference. Justice demands equality before the law—no more, no less. This is nothing but a desperate attempt by Mr. Malami to blackmail and intimidate the EFCC Chairman and the Commission as a whole, in order to evade accountability for serious allegations of abuse of office, money laundering, and irregularities in the handling of recovered assets, including Abacha loot.
“The Justice Ayo Salami Panel was established precisely to cleanse the EFCC and rid Nigeria of individuals with questionable wealth and conduct in public office. Nowhere in the Salami Report—including the referenced Chapter Nine—does it state or imply that the EFCC is barred from investigating or prosecuting former public officials like Mr. Malami.
“On the contrary, the panel’s work was meant to strengthen the EFCC’s mandate to pursue economic and financial crimes without fear or favour, targeting characters whose accumulated wealth raises legitimate questions about integrity and transparency.
The EFCC Chairman, Mr. Ola Olukoyede, has no legal or ethical obligation to recuse himself. His prior role as Secretary to the Salami Panel does not create a conflict that prevents him from discharging his constitutional duties. The law on recusal applies where there is proven or reasonably apprehended bias in a judicial or quasi-judicial proceeding—not in routine law enforcement investigations. The EFCC is acting within its statutory powers under the EFCC Act, and no provision shields former Attorneys-General from scrutiny simply because they once supervised anti-corruption efforts.
“If Mr. Malami is truly confident in his innocence, he should submit fully to the investigative process and face any charges in a competent court, rather than resorting to media trials, selective leaks, and baseless accusations against the EFCC leadership.
“Furthermore, in the spirit of transparency that Mr. Malami now preaches while relying on the Salami Report, he should immediately declare his net worth and asset profile as at 2010, before assuming high office, to enable Nigerians compare it with his current acquisitions. This would provide a balanced perspective on the sources of his wealth and align with the very principles of accountability that the Salami Panel sought to uphold—principles designed to expose and eliminate public officials with unexplained or questionable riches.
“The EFCC and Chairman must remain undeterred. Nigerians demand justice without selective application. I assure Mr. Malami that under the administration of President Bola Tinubu, any attempts to undermine the Commission through blackmail will not succeed,” Onoh stated.
