Â
ABUJA — Former Attorney-General of the Federation (AGF) Abubakar Malami (SAN) and his son, Abdulaziz, have been ordered to remain in DSS custody following their arraignment on Tuesday, February 3, 2026.
The pair pleaded not guilty to a five-count charge involving terrorism financing and the illegal possession of military-grade firearms. The DSS specifically alleges that Malami, while serving under the Buhari administration, knowingly refused to prosecute terrorism financiers whose files were on his desk.
The trial has reignited public memories of Malami’s role in the 2021 extraordinary rendition of IPOB leader Nnamdi Kanu from Kenya. Critics on social media were quick to highlight the irony of the man who orchestrated Kanu’s capture now facing his own terrorism-related indictment.
Â
Justice Joyce Abdulmalik rejected an oral bail application, ordering the defendants to be remanded until February 20, 2026. Malami also faces a separate ₦8.7 billion money laundering trial involving his wife and son.
–
Reaction from Nnamdi Kanu’s team
The legal team and leadership of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB) have reacted to the arraignment and remand of former Attorney-General Abubakar Malami with a mix of vindication and pointed criticism.
- “What Goes Around, Comes Around”
IPOB’s special counsel, Aloy Ejimakor, has characterized Malami’s current legal ordeal as a case of “retributive justice.” Following Malami’s initial re-arrest by the DSS in late 2025, Ejimakor took to social media to tell the former AGF to “carry his cross,” explicitly linking Malami’s detention to his role in the 2021 extraordinary rendition of Nnamdi Kanu from Kenya. Ejimakor argued that Malami is now experiencing the same “disregard for the rule of law” and “bail issues” that he allegedly used to keep Kanu in custody.
- Indictment of the “Buhari Legacy”
The pro-Biafra group has used Malami’s terrorism financing charges to challenge the moral authority of the previous administration. IPOB issued a statement describing Malami’s tenure as a “criminal enterprise masquerading as a state,” alleging that the former AGF sanctioned a “looting spree” while using the state apparatus to criminalize political dissent and self-determination.
- Claims of Selective Prosecution
While expressing satisfaction at Malami’s trial, IPOB’s legal team has highlighted what they see as a double standard:
- Manufactured Insecurity: The group claims that Malami “manufactured” insecurity stories to justify Kanu’s conviction for terrorism in late 2025, while Malami himself is now accused of shielding the actual financiers of Northern banditry.
- Call for Release: IPOB continues to demand Kanu’s unconditional release, arguing that if the man who orchestrated his capture is now indicted for aiding terrorism, the entire legal basis for Kanu’s detention has been compromised.
- Comparisons of Treatment
Legal commentators within the IPOB circle have noted the irony of Malami’s defense team raising alarms over denial of access to legal counsel and family in DSS custody—tactics that IPOB lawyers frequently accused Malami of employing against Kanu for over four years.
