The Department of State Services (DSS) on Monday brought former Attorney-General of the Federation and Minister of Justice, Abubakar Malami (SAN), and his son, Abdulaziz Abubakar Malami, before the Federal High Court in Abuja, in a prosecution that has drawn national attention due to the stature of the accused and the gravity of the allegations.
The case, registered as FHC/ABJ/CR/63/2026, revolves around a five-count charge bordering on terrorism-related offences and the unlawful possession of firearms.
The Malami terrorism charges mark one of the most high-profile criminal proceedings involving a former chief law officer of the federation since Nigeria’s return to democratic rule.
According to court filings, Malami is accused of knowingly aiding terrorism financing while serving as Attorney-General.
The prosecution alleges that during his tenure, he deliberately failed to prosecute individuals suspected of financing terrorism, despite the fact that their case files were reportedly forwarded to his office for necessary legal action.
Security sources familiar with the matter told the court that the alleged refusal to act on the files formed the basis of the first count, which accuses Malami of abetting terrorism financing in violation of the Terrorism (Prevention and Prohibition) Act, 2022.
The charge suggests that the alleged omission was not accidental but a conscious decision taken while he occupied public office.
Beyond the financing allegations, both father and son are jointly accused of unlawfully storing firearms and ammunition at their private residence in Gesse Phase II Area, Birnin Kebbi Local Government Area of Kebbi State.
Investigators claim the weapons were found without any valid licence or authorization, a development that escalated the severity of the case.
Court documents reveal that the items allegedly recovered include a Sturm Magnum 17-0101 firearm, sixteen Redstar AAA 5.20 live cartridges, and twenty-seven expended cartridges of the same brand.
Prosecutors argue that the possession of these items constituted conduct preparatory to acts of terrorism, bringing the case squarely under the scope of anti-terrorism legislation.
Legal analysts observing the proceedings note that the Malami terrorism charges represent a rare intersection of national security law and accountability for actions taken by senior public officials while in office.
They point out that the outcome could set an important precedent for future prosecutions involving alleged abuse of prosecutorial discretion.
When the charges were read in open court, both Malami and his son pleaded not guilty to all counts.
The courtroom atmosphere was tense but orderly, as the defendants stood quietly while the allegations were outlined by the registrar.
Following the plea, prosecuting counsel Calistus Eze requested that the court remand the defendants in DSS custody pending the commencement of trial.
He argued that the nature of the offences, which touch on national security, required strict custodial measures to prevent interference with investigations.
Defence counsel Shuaibu Aruwan (SAN), however, countered with an oral application for bail.
He informed the court that the defendants had already spent more than two weeks in DSS detention and urged the judge to exercise discretion in their favour.
In a brief ruling, Justice Joyce Abdulmalik declined the oral bail request, explaining that the Federal High Court, as a court of record, requires bail applications to be formally filed and supported by affidavits.
She ordered that both defendants remain in DSS custody and adjourned the case until February 20 for the commencement of trial.
Observers say the handling of the bail issue underscores the seriousness with which the judiciary is approaching the Malami terrorism charges, especially given the national security implications involved.
The remaining counts in the charge sheet accuse the defendants of violating multiple provisions of the Firearms Act, 2004, including unlawful possession of a firearm and ammunition without licence.
Each count carries penalties that could result in lengthy prison terms if proven beyond reasonable doubt.
As the case moves toward full trial, public interest continues to grow, with many Nigerians closely watching how the courts will balance the presumption of innocence against the need for accountability in matters touching on terrorism and state security.
The Malami terrorism charges have already ignited debate within legal and political circles, particularly over the responsibilities of senior public officials in combating terrorism.
With the next hearing date set, the trial is expected to feature testimonies from security operatives, forensic experts, and legal officers, potentially shedding more light on decisions taken at the highest levels of government during Malami’s tenure.
Ireport247news
About The Author
