In July 2023, TheCable published an investigation raising questions about five major transactions handled during the tenure of former Attorney-General of the Federation and Minister of Justice, Abubakar Malami.
Three years later, that old investigation has acquired a new relevance.
Malami is no longer simply a former minister facing questions over decisions taken in office. In 2026, he is defending himself in an ongoing Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) money-laundering case involving allegations of about ₦8.7 billion, while a Federal High Court has ordered the final forfeiture of 48 properties linked to him and others after finding that the respondents had not displaced the reasonable suspicion that the properties were acquired through unlawful activities. Malami has denied the allegations in the criminal proceedings.
That does not mean the five transactions reported in 2023 have been proven fraudulent.
But it does mean they deserve to be examined carefully, because they involve hundreds of millions of dollars in public money, recovered assets, judgment claims, international arbitration and some of Nigeria's most important strategic projects.
1. The $496 million Ajaokuta settlement
One of the biggest questions concerns the settlement between Nigeria and Global Steel Holdings Limited over the Ajaokuta Steel Company and the National Iron Ore Mining Company, Itakpe.
According to TheCable's 2023 investigation, the Federal Government agreed to pay Global Steel $496 million in 2022 to settle claims connected to the termination of its concessions.
The settlement was presented by the government as a major reduction from Global Steel's original claim of $5.258 billion.
But the controversy goes further back.
Global Steel's concessions were revoked during the Yar'Adua administration after allegations including asset stripping and violations of the concession terms. The company subsequently pursued arbitration and other legal avenues.
TheCable reported that earlier negotiations had produced circumstances in which Global Steel had reportedly abandoned compensation claims, making the eventual $496 million settlement a subject of scrutiny.
The central question is therefore not simply whether Nigeria reduced a $5.258 billion claim to $496 million.
It is:
Why did Nigeria ultimately agree to pay hundreds of millions of dollars after previous administrations had announced that the disputes had been resolved?
That question requires the underlying agreements, arbitration records, legal opinions, settlement authority and payment documentation to be examined together.
2. The recovered-assets controversy
The second issue concerns assets recovered from individuals facing corruption allegations and the role of the Justice Ministry in managing or disposing of those assets.
TheCable reported that Ladidi Mohammed, who headed the ministry's Asset Recovery and Management Unit, was questioned by the EFCC in 2022 over allegations surrounding the sale of recovered assets.
The report said Mohammed claimed she acted on Malami's instructions but could not produce documentary evidence for those alleged verbal instructions.
There was also controversy over the use of private firms in asset-recovery work.
One contract reported by TheCable involved Gerry Ikputu & Partners and M.E. Sheriff & Co. concerning properties across several states and the Federal Capital Territory.
The reported arrangement provided for a percentage of recovered asset values as fees.
That raises an important governance question:
When government agencies already have statutory responsibilities for recovering and managing proceeds of crime, under what circumstances should private contractors be brought into the process, and how should their fees be independently verified?
It is a question about transparency, procurement and institutional accountability—not merely about one former minister.
3. The disputed $418 million Paris Club payments
The Paris Club refunds generated another major confrontation.
Consultants claimed they were entitled to substantial fees for work connected with calculations and processes surrounding refunds to Nigerian states.
Malami supported an arrangement under which about $418 million would be paid to the consultants, with deductions from states' allocations.
The Nigeria Governors' Forum disputed the claims and questioned the basis for the payments.
TheCable reported that one Federal High Court order restrained the consultants from transacting with promissory notes connected to the disputed payments.
The controversy ultimately comes down to a basic public-finance question:
What work was actually performed, what contractual obligation existed, and who had the legal authority to commit the states to payment?
The answers matter because the money involved was not simply private commercial revenue. The proposed deductions affected funds belonging to Nigeria's states and, ultimately, public services.
4. The proposed $200 million Sunrise Power settlement
The Mambilla hydropower project produced another extraordinary dispute.
Sunrise Power and Transmission Company claimed contractual interests in the project and commenced arbitration proceedings against Nigeria.
TheCable reported that Malami subsequently proposed a $200 million settlement with Sunrise Power in 2020, describing it as a final settlement intended to end the dispute.
But there was a major complication.
According to documents reported by TheCable, Malami had previously expressed a substantially different legal view of Sunrise's position.
In a 2017 letter, he reportedly questioned whether a valid contract existed between the Federal Government and Sunrise because the project lacked the required Federal Executive Council approval.
By 2020, however, he was seeking approval for the government to settle the dispute for $200 million.
Former President Muhammadu Buhari reportedly responded that the Federal Government did not have the $200 million to pay.
The case remained in arbitration.
This is precisely the type of transaction where documentary transparency matters.
What changed between the earlier legal opinion and the later settlement proposal?
What new evidence emerged?
Who authorised the negotiations?
And what would Nigeria have received in exchange for the proposed payment?
Those questions should be answered through the official record rather than political speculation.
5. The $17 million Abacha-loot legal-fee controversy
The fifth transaction concerns the repatriation of $321 million recovered from funds linked to former military ruler Sani Abacha.
The Nigerian government had previously engaged Swiss lawyer Enrico Monfrini to trace and recover Abacha-linked assets internationally.
According to TheCable, Monfrini and others had already been paid for their recovery work.
The controversy arose when Nigerian lawyers were subsequently engaged in connection with transferring the already-recovered $321 million from Switzerland to Nigeria.
TheCable reported that two Nigerian lawyers received $17 million in professional fees for the work.
That figure immediately raises a question of proportionality.
If the money had already been identified, frozen and recovered through years of international legal work, what precisely justified a further multimillion-dollar payment for its transfer?
Again, the answer should be found in contracts, engagement letters, legal opinions, invoices, approvals and evidence of services rendered.
Why the old investigation matters now
The significance of these five transactions is not that an investigative article from 2023 automatically proves criminal conduct.
It does not.
The significance is that several of the issues it raised concern the same broader questions now being tested through formal legal proceedings: the source and movement of money, property acquisition, corporate structures, government contracts and the exercise of official authority.
In April 2026, the EFCC presented documentary evidence in Malami's ongoing trial, including bank records covering accounts associated with him and his law firm. A prosecution witness testified about large inflows into accounts connected to Malami and companies associated with his family. The allegations remain before the court and are being contested by the defence.
Then, in July 2026, the Federal High Court ordered the final forfeiture of 48 properties linked to Malami and others. The court's ruling concerned civil forfeiture and reasonable suspicion regarding the source of funds; it should not be confused with a criminal conviction.
That distinction is crucial.
A forfeiture order is not the same thing as a criminal conviction.
An EFCC allegation is not the same thing as proof beyond reasonable doubt.
And an investigative report identifying suspicious circumstances is not itself a judicial finding.
But these developments make one thing clear: the financial history surrounding Malami's years in office is now receiving scrutiny through formal legal processes, not merely newspaper investigations.
The bigger Nigerian question
There is a broader lesson here.
Nigeria has repeatedly entered enormous settlements, consultancy arrangements, legal agreements and asset-recovery deals whose financial consequences can continue long after the officials who approved them have left office.
The public often learns about these transactions only after disputes emerge.
By then, contracts may have been signed, money may have moved and international arbitration may already be underway.
A stronger system would make major public transactions easier to scrutinise before they become controversies.
That means publishing significant settlement agreements where legally permissible, identifying beneficiaries and consultants, explaining professional fees, disclosing the legal basis for government commitments and maintaining a transparent record of recovered assets.
The question surrounding Malami's five controversial deals is therefore larger than one former Attorney-General.
It is about whether Nigeria can build a system in which public money is difficult to commit without scrutiny, recovered assets cannot disappear into opaque arrangements, and major government settlements leave a clear documentary trail for citizens to follow.
The courts can determine the criminal allegations.
Auditors and investigators can establish what happened to public funds.
But the public record should make it possible for Nigerians to understand how hundreds of millions of dollars were committed in the first place.
Comments
Post a Comment