By By Elizabeth Ugbo
The Federal High Court in Abuja on Wednesday, September 16, 2026, struck out an EFCC forfeiture motion after former Power Minister Saleh Mamman appealed his conviction. Justice James Omotosho struck out the motion after EFCC counsel, Abba Mohammed, withdrew it following Mamman’s appeal against the judgment.
Mamman is challenging his conviction and 75-year prison sentence at the Court of Appeal. His legal team filed the notice of appeal on May 26, 2026.
EFCC Withdraws Property Forfeiture Motion
The EFCC filed the motion dated July 29, 2026, under several provisions of Nigerian law.
The provisions include the EFCC Act 2004 and the Administration of Criminal Justice Act 2015.
The commission sought permanent forfeiture of properties it linked to the former minister.
However, Mohammed told the court that Mamman’s appeal prompted the withdrawal of the application.
Defence counsel, Femi Atteh, SAN, did not oppose the withdrawal.
Justice Omotosho subsequently granted the application and struck out the motion.
Mamman Challenges 75-Year Prison Sentence
Justice Omotosho convicted Mamman on 12 counts linked to an alleged N33.8 billion fraud case.
The court convicted him on May 7, 2026, before sentencing him to a cumulative 75 years on May 13.
The EFCC had prosecuted the former minister over alleged corruption and money laundering offences.
The trial court also ordered Mamman to refund N22 billion traced to him during the investigation.
Mamman has now asked the Court of Appeal to quash the conviction.
His legal team also wants the appellate court to discharge and acquit him.
Defence Raises Fair Hearing Concerns
The appeal contains 18 grounds challenging the trial and conviction.
One major ground concerns the delivery of judgment in Mamman’s absence on May 7.
His lawyers said the court had earlier adjourned the matter until June 9 for judgment.
They argued that the court later abridged the date without serving him with a hearing notice.
According to the defence, Mamman never waived his right to attend the proceedings.
They contend that the development breached Section 36 of the 1999 Constitution.
They also cited Section 352(4) of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act 2015.
Defence Questions Evidence Used Against Mamman
Mamman’s lawyers also challenged the evidence supporting the conviction.
They argued that the court relied substantially on uncorroborated accomplice evidence.
The defence further challenged counts seven to 12, claiming no plea was taken on those counts.
His lawyers also disputed findings concerning the Zungeru and Mambilla hydroelectric projects.
They argued that the funds remained domiciled with the Central Bank of Nigeria.
According to the defence, the Office of the Accountant-General of the Federation controlled the accounts.
They further argued that Mamman was neither an approving authority nor a signatory.
The defence also alleged that some findings relied on hearsay and speculation.
It maintained that the trial court disregarded relevant documentary evidence.
Property Purchase Also Challenged
Another appeal ground concerns a property at No. 12 Lungi Street, Wuse II, Abuja.
The defence argued that the trial court improperly shifted the burden of proof to Mamman.
According to his lawyers, the court faulted him for failing to explain the source of funds used to acquire the property.
The defence says the approach affected the fairness of the proceedings.
Lawyers Challenge Extra-Judicial Statements
Mamman’s legal team also challenged the admission of his extra-judicial statements.
The lawyers argued that investigators failed to comply with Sections 15 and 17 of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act 2015.
They specifically cited the absence of audio-visual recordings of the statements.
The defence therefore wants the appellate court to reconsider the admissibility of the statements.
Defence Alleges Judicial Bias
Mamman’s lawyers further alleged that the trial judge showed bias during the proceedings.
They argued that the alleged conduct resulted in a miscarriage of justice.
The defence also raised concerns about documentary evidence and witness testimony.
It cited alleged contradictions, disclosure issues and disputed documentation.
The legal team said these issues require further scrutiny by the appellate court.
Subpoenaed Witness Dispute
Another ground of appeal concerns Abdulkareem Ozi Ibrahim.
Ibrahim served as Director, Special Projects Accounts, in the Office of the Accountant-General of the Federation.
The defence claimed that the trial court prevented the subpoenaed witness from testifying.
His lawyers argued that the witness could have provided relevant evidence for Mamman’s defence.
They also challenged the prosecution’s reopening of examination-in-chief.
According to the defence, the prosecution had already closed its case.
The matter had also been adjourned for cross-examination before the alleged reopening.
Appeal Now Before Court of Appeal
The Court of Appeal will now consider the grounds raised against the conviction.
Mamman’s appeal challenges both the trial process and the evidence relied upon by the Federal High Court.
The appellate court’s determination will decide whether the conviction and sentence remain in force.
Meanwhile, the Federal High Court has struck out the latest EFCC forfeiture motion following its withdrawal.
