01/01/2026
[Branded-content]
Malami vs the EFCC: Where Did the Terrorism Financing and ‘Trillion-Naira’ Allegations Go?
By Udu Yakubu
When vindictiveness, vendetta and prejudice take hold, injustice can look like justice. That is the core problem with sustained narratives around contested claims that are repeated so often and eventually presented as settled fact. At the heart of the mischief-driven stories built around Abubakar Malami are disputed assets which, over months, hardened into accusations propagated as abuse-of-office narratives.
For months, Abubakar Malami, SAN, Nigeria’s immediate past Attorney General and Minister of Justice, has been the subject of sustained allegations by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC).
The allegations were specific and severe: terrorism financing, missing trillions of naira from the Abacha loot recovery, theft of $67 billion in so-called “golden crude,” and the operation of dozens of suspicious bank accounts.
These claims were not presented as preliminary findings subject to investigation. They were presented as established facts, leaked to media outlets, amplified across social platforms, and have been repeated so often that many people now accept them as truth.
Basic allegations were suddenly treated as established fact – accepted as true without any judicial testing.
Nigerians were told to expect a prosecution of historic scale. The language deployed by the EFCC and its media surrogates suggested crimes so extensive they would redefine the boundaries of official corruption. The coverage was not cautious. Malami was not treated as a suspect under investigation; he was already guilty as charged in the court of public opinion. It was, unmistakably, a trial by media.
Then came the moment that truly matters: the filing of formal charges in a court of law. What emerged bore little resemblance to what had been promised. Malami has now been arraigned in court, and the charges filed against him and his co-defendants were framed under Nigeria’s money-laundering laws. They alleged various forms of concealment, control, retention, acquisition, and conspiracy involving proceeds of unlawful activity, linked to financial transactions and property acquisitions across Abuja and other locations.
These are serious charges, carrying legal consequences and subject to proof in court. Yet, they are fundamentally different from the allegations Nigerians had been primed to expect.
Nowhere in the charge sheet does the word “terrorism” appear. Nowhere is there mention of missing trillions from Abacha loot, nowhere was he accused of unlawfully enriching himself with a single kobo. Nowhere is there reference to the $67 billion “golden crude” allegation that dominated headlines for months. The most explosive accusations – the ones that justified sustained media saturation and public vilification – did not survive the transition from press briefing to court filing.
Another glaring omission in the charge sheet is the much-talked-about asset disposal and auction process that dominated public discourse for months. Despite sustained insinuations that the auction of seized or disputed assets formed the core of alleged wrongdoing, no count before the court expressly charges Abubakar Malami with unlawful asset disposal, fraudulent auction, or personal enrichment arising from such processes. The absence of any specific charge on asset auctions reinforces the central question Nigerians must confront: how narratives so loudly amplified outside the courtroom continue to evaporate once subjected to the discipline of formal prosecution.
What did appear in the charge sheet was asset disposal undertaken during Malami’s tenure as Attorney-General of the Federation. Even there, Malami was not alleged to have enriched himself with a naira. Rather, the case revolved around multi-billion-naira disputed assets, many of which had already been auctioned or contested.
According to Malami himself:
“For the record, the media–EFCC narrative of missing trillions in Abacha loot and the alleged $67 billion ‘golden crude’ collapses upon the filing of charges. Its components are blatantly missing.”
This reality compels difficult but necessary questions. How did allegations of such magnitude disappear when subjected to the requirements of formal prosecution? How did a case sold to the public as involving terrorism financing and missing trillions morph, in court, into a set of money-laundering charges that contain no reference to those claims?
Only two explanations are possible. Either the EFCC possessed evidence of terrorism financing and missing trillions but chose not to prosecute those crimes, or it never possessed such evidence at all. If the former, the public deserves an explanation for why crimes of such gravity were abandoned. If the latter, Nigerians deserve to know why such allegations were made in the first place.
This is not about whether Malami is guilty or innocent of the charges actually filed. That determination belongs exclusively to the court.
This is about the widening gap between what institutions tell the public and what they can ultimately prove in court.
When that gap becomes this wide, it raises profound questions about institutional credibility and the weaponization of prosecution.
Malami has consistently rejected what he describes as “trial by media.” In his words: “On this day, I will be charged to court. This day sets my journey towards clarity and freedom, not by a media trial, but by a judicial process.”
For months, the EFCC functioned not only as investigator but also as publicist, briefing journalists on alleged crimes while the formal legal process lagged behind. The result was a sustained campaign of reputational destruction that preceded any meaningful opportunity for judicial defense. Malami characterizes this as a vendetta that pre-empted due process.
Terrorism financing, in particular, is not a casual allegation. It is among the gravest offences under Nigerian law, carrying extreme penalties and serious international implications.
Allowing such an accusation to circulate for weeks, only to exclude it entirely from formal charges, is not a procedural oversight. It is deliberate manipulation.
The implication is deeply troubling: was Malami targeted for judicial assassination? The strategic deployment of terrorism allegations – given the severity of sentences they attract – suggests the use of charge propaganda as a political weapon.
Weaponizing the judicial process for the elimination of perceived opposition represents the highest form of injustice being institutionalized within our political culture.
The same logic applies to the claim of missing trillions from the Abacha loot. If such sums are genuinely missing and Malami is responsible, why do the charges not reflect that? If the funds are not missing, or Malami is not responsible, why was the allegation made at all?
Nigerians were told repeatedly that trillions had vanished. When the time came to prove it, the allegation itself vanished.
The $67 billion “golden crude” narrative followed the same pattern. It was specific enough to sound credible, large enough to provoke outrage, and repeated often enough to become accepted fact.
Yet, when the charges were finally filed, it was nowhere to be found.
Malami’s statement that he has “waited endlessly for vindication” reflects the cruel reality of prosecutions conducted in the media rather than in court.
Even if he is acquitted of every charge, the damage inflicted by months of sensational coverage will endure.
Reputation, once harmed, is not easily restored.
Now that charges have been filed, the proper forum for this matter is the courtroom.
Evidence must be tested.
Witnesses must be examined.
The defense must be allowed to challenge the prosecution’s case.
Nigerians are entitled to answers.
Why were terrorism financing allegations made if they were never intended to be charged?
Why was there a proclamation about missing trillions of naira if they were never going to be proven?
Why was the golden crude scandal amplified if it could not withstand judicial scrutiny? And crucially: at what point, in the asset-disposal process, did Malami compromise his integrity?
Allegations should follow official action, not precede and prejudice it. Rolling forward disputed assets as criminal allegations, without carefully weighing reasonable grounds for suspicion against necessity and proportionality, risks turning law enforcement into a tool of humiliation rather than justice.
If the charges filed are proven, Malami should face the full consequences prescribed by law. But if they are not proven, or if the more serious allegations are exposed as politically motivated fabrications, then the institutions responsible owe Nigerians more than silence or retreat. They owe accountability.
The EFCC must not be permitted to destroy reputations through fabricated and damaging media leaks, only to retreat to lesser charges when compelled to meet the evidentiary standards of a courtroom. Weaponising the charge sheet to achieve political points – silencing the opposition and extorting outcomes through charges – must be avoided at all cost.
The question of vendetta and the weaponization of Chapter 9 of the Justice Ayo Salami Report remain valid in the minds of Nigerians. The EFCC must come clean of the insinuations.
The final question, therefore, is unavoidable: will the court decide this case strictly on admissible evidence and the law, or have weeks of media trial already determined the outcome? Only time will tell, while Nigerians remain on the look.
Dr. Udu Yakubu can be reached via email at: [email protected]
--
![[Branded-content]Malami vs the EFCC: Where Did the Terrorism Financing and ‘Trillion-Naira’ Allegations Go? By Udu Yakub...](https://img3.ngos1.com/396/930/1182775843969300.jpg)
