The Supreme Court has ordered the resumption of the ₦1.35 billion corruption trial of former Jigawa State Governor, Alhaji Sule Lamido, and his two sons, Mustapha and Aminu, overturning a Court of Appeal decision that had discharged them.
In a unanimous judgment delivered on Friday, a five-member panel of the apex court, led by Justice Abubakar Sadiq Umar, upheld the appeal filed by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) and set aside the July 2023 ruling of the Court of Appeal which had struck out the charges against the defendants.
The Supreme Court held that the EFCC’s appeal was meritorious and directed that Lamido and his sons return to the Federal High Court in Abuja to open their defence in the long-running trial.
Lamido, his sons, another defendant, Aminu Wada Abubakar, and two companies—Bamaina Holdings Limited and Speeds International Limited—are facing trial before Justice Ijeoma Ojukwu of the Federal High Court on a 37-count amended charge bordering on money laundering and abuse of office.
The EFCC alleges that Lamido, who governed Jigawa State from 2007 to 2015, laundered ₦1.35 billion in kickbacks allegedly received from contractors handling state government projects during his tenure.
The case has traversed a complex judicial path since charges were first filed. At the close of the prosecution’s case, the defendants filed a no-case submission, arguing that the evidence presented was insufficient to require them to enter a defence.
Justice Ojukwu dismissed the no-case submission, ruling that the prosecution had established a prima facie case and ordering the defendants to present their defence.
However, the Court of Appeal, in July 2023, overturned that decision and struck out the charges, effectively discharging Lamido and his co-defendants. The EFCC subsequently appealed to the Supreme Court.
In its appeal, the anti-graft agency argued that the Court of Appeal erred in law by discharging the defendants despite what it described as compelling evidence. The EFCC contended that the appellate court misapplied the principles governing no-case submissions and improperly evaluated the evidence led at trial.
The Supreme Court agreed, restoring all the charges and directing the Federal High Court to continue the trial from the defence stage.
The case is among several high-profile corruption prosecutions involving former state governors, reflecting Nigeria’s protracted struggle against public-sector graft. Lamido, a senior figure in the opposition Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), has consistently denied the allegations.
Since leaving office in 2015, Lamido has remained politically active. He contested the PDP presidential primary ahead of the 2019 general election, losing to former Vice President Atiku Abubakar, and has continued to play a prominent role within the party, often criticising the administration of President Bola Tinubu and the ruling All Progressives Congress.
The prosecution of former governors has become a recurring feature of Nigeria’s anti-corruption efforts, with mixed outcomes ranging from convictions to cases collapsing due to procedural lapses or prolonged litigation.
Established in 2003, the EFCC has made the prosecution of corrupt officials and the recovery of stolen public funds central to its mandate, though it has faced criticism over allegations of selective prosecution and the slow pace of high-profile trials.
Nigeria’s judicial system has also drawn scrutiny for the length of time required to conclude corruption cases, which often span several years due to adjournments, interlocutory applications, and appeals through multiple layers of the courts.
The Lamido case typifies these challenges. With the Supreme Court’s ruling, proceedings will now resume at the Federal High Court, where the defendants are required under Nigerian criminal procedure to present evidence in their defence.
The 37-count charge includes allegations of money laundering, offences that carry severe penalties under the Money Laundering (Prohibition) Act. The inclusion of Lamido’s sons and two corporate entities reflects the EFCC’s claim that the alleged scheme involved multiple actors and the use of corporate vehicles to conceal illicit financial flows.
