The Department of State Services(DSS) has re-arraigned former Attorney General of the Federation Abubakar Malami and his son, Abdulaziz, before the Federal High Court in Abuja over an amended charge involving alleged terrorism and unlawful possession of firearms.
The case, presided over by Joyce Abdulmalik, followed a request by prosecution counsel Akinlolu Kehinde (SAN) to withdraw the earlier charge and replace it with a revised one. Defence counsel Shaibu Aruwa (SAN) confirmed receipt of the amended charge and agreed it be read in court, after which both defendants pleaded not guilty.
According to the charges, the defendants allegedly possessed firearms and ammunition without a licence in December 2025 in Kebbi State. Part of the charge reads: “That you Abubakar Malami, adult, male, and Abdulaziz Abubakar Malami, adult, male, sometime in December, 2025, at Geeze Phase II Area, Birnin Kebbi LGA, Kebbi State, within the jurisdiction of this honourable court, did engage in preparation to commit acts of terrorism by having in your possession and without license, a Sturm Magnum 17 – 0101 firearm, 16 Redstar AAA 5’20 live rounds of cartridges and 27 expended Redstar and thereby committed an offence contrary to and punishable under Section 29 of the Terrorism (Prevention and Prohibition) Act, 2022.”
Another count adds: “That you, Abubakar Malami, adult, male, and Abdulaziz Abubakar Malami, adult, male, sometime in December, 2025, at Geeze Phase II Area, Birnin Kebbi LGA, Kebbi State, within the jurisdiction of this honourable court did conspire amongst yourselves in preparation to commit acts of terrorism by having in your possession and without a license a Sturm Magnum 17 – 0101 firearm, 16 Redstar AAA 5’20 live rounds of cartridges and 27 expended Redstar, contrary to Section 26 (1) of the Terrorism (Prevention and Prohibition Act) 2022 and punishable under Section 26 (3) (a) and (b) of the Terrorism (Prevention and Prohibition Act) 2022.”
Following their plea, the prosecution requested trial dates, while the defence asked that the defendants remain on their existing bail. With no objection from the prosecution, the court ruled that they would continue on the bail earlier granted on February 27. The case has been adjourned to May 26 and June 15 for trial proceedings.
