Arewa group accuses EFCC of promoting prejudice in ex-AGF Malami trial 

The Arewa Youth Progressive Alliance (AYPA) has accused the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) of promoting a narrative capable of prejudicing the ongoing trial of former Attorney-General of the Federation and Minister of Justice, Abubakar Malami, SAN.

In a statement issued on Wednesday and signed by its spokesperson, Adam Umar Adam, the group expressed concern over what it described as an orchestrated campaign to influence public perception through selective reporting rather than evidence properly tested before the court.

According to AYPA, critical facts that emerged during the court proceedings have been deliberately ignored in favour of sensational reports aimed at portraying the former minister as guilty in the court of public opinion.

The group’s reaction followed the testimony of the fifth prosecution witness, a compliance officer with Jaiz Bank, during which several media organisations reported alleged multi-million naira transactions linked to Alkausar Farms.

AYPA said the reports created the impression that fresh incriminating evidence had been established against Malami and his co-defendants while omitting key revelations made during cross-examination.

“Curiously, the same reports deliberately ignored the most important revelations that emerged during cross-examination,” the group stated.

It noted that the witness admitted under cross-examination that she was not the account officer responsible for the account in question.

The group further pointed out that the witness confirmed before the court that none of the defendants, including Malami, his wife or his son, was a signatory to the Alkausar Farms account tendered as evidence.

AYPA also stated that the witness testified that none of the inflows and outflows in the account records originated from the Federal Ministry of Justice and that no payments were made either from the ministry to the account or from the account to the ministry.

“These are not minor details. They are central facts that go to the heart of the public narrative being promoted around this case,” the statement said.

The group argued that despite extensive publicity surrounding the testimony, the prosecution witness did not establish that the funds in question belonged to Malami, that he controlled the account, or that the transactions represented proceeds of unlawful activity linked to him.

AYPA also drew attention to publicly available records indicating that Alkausar Farms was established in 2008, about seven years before Malami assumed office as Attorney-General of the Federation.

“It is therefore misleading for sections of the media to repeatedly create the impression that the existence of transactions in an account automatically translates into wrongdoing by Malami without first establishing ownership, signatory authority, beneficial interest or any nexus to criminal conduct,” the statement added.

According to the group, after the testimony of five prosecution witnesses, no evidence has yet been presented linking transactions in the Alkausar Farms account to the Federal Ministry of Justice.

AYPA stressed that responsible journalism requires reports of court proceedings to reflect both examination-in-chief and cross-examination, particularly where admissions made during cross-examination substantially alter public understanding of the evidence.

“We are not asking for special treatment for Malami or any other defendant. We are demanding fairness, balance and respect for the principle that every citizen remains innocent until proven guilty by a competent court of law,” the group stated.

The alliance warned that continued selective reporting of judicial proceedings could undermine public confidence in both the media and the justice system, describing any attempt to reach conclusions before a court verdict was legally unjustified.

It called on the EFCC and media organisations to exercise greater restraint and professionalism in handling information relating to ongoing trials, insisting that guilt or innocence can only be determined by a competent court of law.