Malami And Forfeiture Judgement Let Justice Prevail Not Public Perception -By Hajia Hadiza Mohammed

The recent judgment by an Abuja High Court presided over by Justice Joyce Abdulmalik ordering the forfeiture of properties and investments linked to Abubakar Malami, SAN, the former Attorney-General and Minister of Justice has elicited much interest from concerned members of the public. And just as many have wondered the basis of the order given that it was based on the suspicion that the properties were acquired from proceeds of unlawful activities which the prosecution could not establish, there are many questions that must be asked as regard to the judgment but that is not the subject of this essay. The pertinent questions pertaining to the order will be dealt with in my next essay. 

My attention here is the unfair trial in the court of public opinion. The EFCC and the nation’s security agencies have the penchant for condemning suspects and defendants for corrupt cases before the actual court trials begin. And this is condemnable. Before court trials, the so-called anti-graft agencies will arrest suspects parade them in handcuffs before the press. Sometimes, deny them bail and keep them in custody for days and weeks while they claim that investigation is going on just because they are looking for evidence to nail the accused. And in the process, they will be screaming headlines and sensational reports in the press concerning the case so much so that the public would assume that the suspect is guilty as charged. This is not global best practice. This is more like an abuse of the rights of the accused. The accused according to our laws is innocent until proved otherwise by the prosecution. Some people believe that this unprofessional conduct of sensationalizing cases against public servants most times influence the judgment on the court. And I think they are right otherwise there would not have been any need for sub judice rule. 

Yes the recent court-ordered forfeiture of properties linked to former Attorney-General of the Federation and Minister of Justice, Abubakar Malami, SAN, has once again ignited intense public debate. While the sheer number and value of the assets have naturally attracted widespread attention, it is important that Nigerians separate legal proceedings from public judgment.

One of the greatest challenges faced by public office holders in Nigeria is how quickly reputations can be damaged. In today’s environment, allegations alone are often enough to convict a person in the court of public opinion, long before the legal process has run its course. Headlines spread rapidly, social media amplifies every accusation, and many people reach conclusions before all the facts are presented. Yet, our justice system is founded on a different principle: every individual is entitled to due process and a fair hearing.

A forfeiture order, significant as it may be, is part of a legal process. The law provides mechanisms for parties to challenge such decisions through appeals and other judicial remedies. Until those processes are exhausted, it is only fair that the public refrain from making final judgments about anyone’s guilt or innocence.

Abubakar Malami served Nigeria as Attorney-General and Minister of Justice for eight years under the administration of President Muhammadu Buhari. Throughout his tenure, he occupied one of the most demanding public offices in the country, overseeing legal reforms, international asset recovery efforts, and the prosecution of several high-profile cases. Whether one agrees or disagrees with his decisions in office, his years of public service deserve to be assessed with fairness rather than prejudice.

History has shown that public figures have, on occasion, been subjected to investigations or legal proceedings that were later overturned, modified, or resolved in their favour. This is precisely why the rule of law exists—not to satisfy public sentiment, but to ensure that justice is based on evidence, established legal principles, and independent judicial determination.

It is also important to remember that fighting corruption and protecting civil liberties are not mutually exclusive. A credible anti-corruption campaign must be conducted within the boundaries of the law, respecting the constitutional rights of every citizen, regardless of status or political affiliation. If the evidence ultimately supports the government’s case, the courts will uphold it. If not, the same judicial system provides the opportunity for correction.

Nigerians should therefore avoid celebrating or condemning individuals solely on the basis of ongoing legal proceedings. Once a person’s reputation is unfairly tarnished, it is often difficult to restore, even if subsequent legal decisions vindicate them. Justice should not be driven by emotion, politics, or media narratives, but by facts, evidence, and the impartial application of the law.

The true strength of any democracy lies not in how quickly it condemns its citizens, but in how faithfully it protects the principles of fairness, due process, and the presumption of innocence. Those principles should apply to every Nigerian—including Abubakar Malami, SAN. The case is not yet over. 

Hajia Hadiza Mohammed 

hajiahadizamohammed@gmail.com 

An actress, social activist, politician 

London, UK