Federal High Court in Abuja acquits Aliyu Abubakar and Malabu Oil in long‑running money‑laundering cases

Background The Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) had pursued a series of money‑laundering allegations against a group of defendants linked to the controversial Oil Prospecting Licence 245. The primary charges were filed in December 2016 under case number FHC/ABJ/CR/268/2016, comprising 43 counts that alleged fraudulent dealings amounting to roughly $1 billion. A related amended 14‑count charge (FHC/ABJ/CR/31/17) also involved former Attorney‑General Mohammed Bello Adoke and AA Oil chairman Aliyu Abubakar. The litigation had been ongoing for about seven years before reaching a resolution in October 2026.

Court's Findings On Thursday, Justice Inyang Ekwo of the Federal High Court in Abuja delivered a judgment that discharged and acquitted Malabu Oil and Gas Limited, Aliyu Abubakar, and six other defendants. The judge concluded that the EFCC’s evidence was fundamentally flawed and failed to meet the standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt. In addition, the court highlighted that the prosecution proceeded despite a 2018 directive from the Office of the Attorney‑General of the Federation, then headed by Abubakar Malami, which advised against proceeding due to insufficient evidence.

Justice Ekwo also criticised the investigative process, noting that the Investigating Police Officer had not demonstrated that a complete investigation had been concluded before charges were filed. The judgment reiterated the legal principle that charges should only be brought after a thorough investigation, a condition the court found was not satisfied in this instance.

Implications The acquittal removes the immediate legal cloud hanging over Malabu Oil and its associated entities, as well as over Aliyu Abubakar, who had faced prolonged scrutiny over the OPL 245 transaction. The decision also underscores the importance of adhering to procedural safeguards in high‑profile financial crime cases, particularly the requirement for solid investigative foundations before prosecution.

While the EFCC’s broader anti‑corruption mandate remains unchanged, the ruling may prompt a review of its case‑building practices, especially in instances where advisory opinions from the Attorney‑General’s office have been issued. Observers note that the outcome could influence how future money‑laundering prosecutions are prepared and presented in Nigerian courts.

The case concludes a notable chapter in Nigeria’s ongoing efforts to address alleged financial misconduct in the oil sector, with the court’s judgment emphasizing the need for evidentiary robustness and procedural compliance.