..Photo: Abubakar Malami SAN
By Douglas Maha, Abuja
Former Attorney-General of the Federation, Abubakar Malami, has rejected allegations by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) accusing him of duplicating the recovery of the $310 million Abacha loot.
He described EFCC’s claims “baseless, illogical and devoid of any factual foundation,” in a statement released on Sunday. Malami said the EFCC’s account collapses under basic scrutiny, insisting there was “no completed recovery” in existence when he assumed office in 2015.
Malami said the EFCC’s narrative that he replicated the work of Swiss lawyer Enrico Monfrini, who was previously engaged to recover the same funds is riddled with contradictions.
“The EFCC’s position is that I duplicated a recovery process allegedly completed before I came into office. That allegation completely falls apart when confronted with verifiable facts. As of 2016, no such funds had been lodged into the Federation Account. There was nothing to duplicate. It is senseless to suggest that a lawyer would apply in December 2016 to be engaged to recover funds he supposedly recovered two years earlier.”
The controversy dates back to Nigeria’s long-running effort to recover billions stolen under the late military ruler Sani Abacha. Swiss lawyer Enrico Monfrini was originally contracted by previous administrations to assist in tracing and repatriating looted assets.
However, delays, unpaid fees and disagreements stalled the process. When Malami assumed office in 2015, the Buhari administration renegotiated aspects of the recovery effort, eventually securing the return of $310 million in 2020 (which accrued to $322.5 million with interest) from the U.S. and Jersey authorities.
It is this period of renegotiation and final repatriation that the EFCC now claims amounted to “duplication”, an accusation Malami rejects as fundamentally flawed.
Malami argued that the EFCC’s claims fail the simplest logic test, adding that the agency’s internal contradictions show that the accusations are politically motivated rather than evidence based. He maintained that every step taken during his tenure followed due process and contributed to the eventual repatriation of funds now deployed for federal social investment programmes.
He insisted that attempts to link him to wrongdoing reflect “a misunderstanding or deliberate misrepresentation” of the legal and diplomatic processes involved in cross-border asset recovery. The former minister said he remains open to scrutiny but expects investigative bodies to rely on facts, not speculation.
