A fresh legal controversy has erupted between the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission and a former Attorney-General of the Federation, Abubakar Malami, SAN, over the service and enforcement of a court order granting bail, raising broader concerns about adherence to the rule of law by state institutions.
The dispute followed a ruling by a Federal High Court, Abuja, which reportedly granted bail to Malami in a matter involving the anti-graft agency.
While the EFCC, through its legal team, has denied being duly served with the court order, Malami’s office insisted that the order was properly served in line with legal procedures.
In a statement issued by Malami’s media office, Mohammed Doka, whose copy was shared with newsmen, it was stated that the EFCC and its lawyers were served with the court order shortly after it was issued.
According to the statement, a court bailiff made attempts to effect service at the EFCC office, but officials allegedly declined to acknowledge or receive the documents.
“The claim by the EFCC that it was not served with the court order is incorrect and misleading,” the statement said, stressing that service was carried out in accordance with the rules of the court and that proof of service exists.
However, the EFCC’s counsel, Barrister Okutepa, SAN, countered the claim, maintaining that the commission was never properly served and therefore could not be accused of disobeying a court directive it had no formal notice of.
The lawyer argued further that “due process must be followed not only in granting orders but also in serving them.”
Beyond the immediate legal disagreement, our correspondent reports that the development has reignited debate on the responsibility of law enforcement agencies to respect court decisions, especially in bail matters.
As a result of the unfolding drama, not a few legal analysts have explained that bail is a constitutional right, not a privilege, and that once granted by a competent court, it must be respected unless set aside by a higher court.
A legal expert, Barrister Mukhtar Abubakar, argued that “the EFCC, as an institution established to uphold the law, must not be seen to be operating strictly outside the legal boundaries if it must retain public trust.”
He stressed that “The fight against corruption can not be effective if due process and court orders are treated with disregard,” Abubakar insisted.
He maintained that “Respect for the rule of law strengthens, rather than weakens, the credibility of anti-corruption efforts.”
Civil society groups have also urged restraint and professionalism, warning that public disagreements over court orders risk undermining confidence in the justice system.
They called on both parties to allow the court process run its course, rather than litigating the matter through press statements.
As the controversy continues, a constitutional lawyer, Abdullahi Inuha, maintained that “attention remains on the EFCC to demonstrate compliance with judicial authority, while the courts are expected to clarify the issue of service and enforce their orders where necessary.”
He added that “for many Nigerians, the case has become a test of institutional respect for the rule of law, especially when powerful agencies and prominent individuals are involved.”
In this article