By John Azu
Family members and political associates of former Minister of Power, Saleh Mamman, have accused the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) of failing to comply with a court order directing that the former minister be remanded in the custody of the Nigerian Correctional Service following his conviction.
The demand followed Mamman’s arrest and detention by the anti-graft agency after a Federal High Court in Abuja, presided over by Justice James Omotosho, sentenced him in absentia to a cumulative 75-year jail term on a 12-count charge bordering on money laundering involving N33.8 billion linked to the Mambilla Hydropower and Zungeru Hydroelectric projects during the administration of former President Muhammadu Buhari.
Justice Omotosho had also directed law enforcement agencies to arrest the former minister and hand him over to the Nigerian Correctional Service custodial centre.
The EFCC subsequently arrested Mamman last week, but his family and associates alleged that the commission had continued to detain him in its custody contrary to the express orders of the court.
In a statement issued on Monday and signed by Aliyu Madaki Babangida on behalf of the family and political associates, the group demanded Mamman’s immediate transfer to the correctional service in compliance with the subsisting judgement.
According to the statement, the continued detention of the former minister in EFCC custody amounted to “an unauthorised departure from the court’s explicit orders,” warning that such action constitutes “a grave affront to Nigeria’s constitutional order and the rule of law.”
The group called on the Nigerian Correctional Service and relevant judicial authorities to activate all statutory procedures for receiving and processing a sentenced convict without further delay.
It also urged the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA), civil society organisations and the media to closely monitor the matter in the interest of judicial integrity and institutional accountability.
The statement maintained that despite the judgment delivered on May 7, 2026, in Charge No. FHC/ABJ/CR/273/2024, Mamman remained in EFCC custody “under circumstances alleged to be inconsistent with the directives of that court.”
“There is no provision in the EFCC Act, the Administration of Criminal Justice Act (ACJA), or any other statute that authorises a prosecuting agency to retain physical custody of a convicted and sentenced individual beyond that point,” the statement read.
“The Nigerian Correctional Service Act, 2019, which governs the reception, custody and management of convicted persons, vests exclusive custodial authority over sentenced individuals in the Nigerian Correctional Service.
“The EFCC (Establishment) Act, 2004 confers powers of investigation, arrest and prosecution on the Commission, but is silent on any authority to detain persons whose trial has concluded and whose sentence has been pronounced by a court.”
The family and associates further cited provisions of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act to support their position.
“Section 270 of the ACJA, 2015 is equally instructive: upon conviction and sentencing, the court issues a warrant of committal addressed to the officer-in-charge of a correctional centre — not to the prosecuting agency. The prosecuting agency’s custodial role is, at that point, functionally and legally spent,” the statement added.
They also relied on constitutional provisions, insisting that all authorities and institutions are bound by court orders.
“Section 287(3) of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended) leaves no room for ambiguity: all persons and authorities in Nigeria, including federal agencies, are constitutionally obligated to conform with and apply the decisions of superior courts.
“The Federal High Court, as a superior court of record under Section 6(5)(b) of the Constitution, issues orders that are binding on all, without exception.”
The group disclosed that it was considering initiating contempt proceedings against the EFCC over what it described as wilful disobedience of a valid court order.
“Nigeria remains a constitutional democracy governed by law, not by institutional discretion or administrative convenience.
“No institution, regardless of its mandate, possesses the authority to operate above the law or outside the framework of valid court orders.
“Section 1(1) of the 1999 Constitution declares the Constitution supreme, and Section 1(3) renders void any conduct of any person or authority that is inconsistent with its provisions. Judicial independence and the enforceability of court orders are cornerstones of that constitutional architecture,” the statement said.