The former Minister of Power, Saleh Mamman, has lodged an appeal before the Court of Appeal, Abuja Division, asking that his conviction and cumulative 75-year jail term in the ₦33.8 billion money-laundering prosecution brought by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) be set aside.
In a notice of appeal dated May 26, 2026, Mamman’s legal team, led by Femi Atteh, SAN, argues that the Federal High Court’s judgment should be set aside, and an order discharging and acquitting him should be entered. The appeal lists 18 grounds challenging both the trial court’s procedure and the findings that led to his conviction.
Conviction and Sentence Details
On May 7, Justice James Omotosho convicted Mamman on all 12 counts brought by the EFCC, relating to funds linked to the Zungeru and Mambilla hydroelectric power projects. On May 13, the judge imposed varying prison terms, ordering them to run consecutively, resulting in a total sentence of 75 years.
Mamman received seven years each on Counts 1 through 3, 6 through 12, with no option of a fine. He was sentenced to three years on Count 4, with an option of a ₦10 million fine, and two years on Count 5, without a fine option. He was convicted and sentenced in absentia before being arrested by the EFCC on May 19.
Key Grounds of Appeal
Central to Mamman’s appeal is his claim that his constitutional right to a fair hearing was violated when the judgment was delivered in his absence on May 7. His lawyers argue that the case had been adjourned to June 9 for judgment but was brought forward without proper notice. They contend this violated Section 36 of the 1999 Constitution and Section 352(4) of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act, 2015.
Another key issue is the trial court’s handling of Abdulkareem Ozi Ibrahim, a subpoenaed witness. The defense claims the judge prevented Ibrahim from testifying while allowing the prosecution to reopen its examination-in-chief after it had closed its case.
Mamman’s lawyers also challenge the conviction’s reliance on what they call uncorroborated accomplice evidence. They argue that no plea was taken from Mamman on Counts 7 through 12, a contention yet to be determined by the Court of Appeal.
Related Post: Top Defense Strategies Used by DUI Lawyers to Reduce or Dismiss Charges
The former minister is also challenging the manner in which the trial court dealt with a subpoenaed witness, Abdulkareem Ozi Ibrahim. They assert the funds were held by the Central Bank of Nigeria and controlled by the Office of the Accountant-General of the Federation, with Mamman neither an approving authority nor a signatory to the accounts.
Mamman’s team further claims the trial court’s findings were based on hearsay and speculation, while favorable documentary evidence was ignored. They also challenge the court’s requirement for Mamman to explain the source of funds for a property at No. 12 Lungi Street, Wuse II, Abuja, arguing this shifted the burden of proof from the prosecution.
Additionally, the appeal contests the admission of Mamman’s extra-judicial statements, alleging non-compliance with the Administration of Criminal Justice Act, 2015. Mamman also claims the trial judge displayed bias, leading to a miscarriage of justice.
The appeal coincides with separate post-conviction proceedings targeting assets allegedly linked to Mamman. The EFCC pursued forfeiture of properties connected to him, with the Federal High Court issuing forfeiture orders. However, a recent motion for further forfeiture was struck out after the prosecution withdrew it, citing the pending appeal.
Following Mamman’s conviction, the EFCC initiated forfeiture proceedings against properties allegedly connected to him. The Federal High Court had previously issued forfeiture orders for certain properties and funds linked to the former minister.
the commission subsequently pursued additional assets after saying the recoveries fell short of the restitution ordered by the trial court.
Defense and Prosecution Arguments
Mamman’s legal team, led by Femi Atteh, SAN, did not oppose the withdrawal of the forfeiture motion. Justice Omotosho subsequently struck out the application, leaving the matter of asset forfeiture unresolved pending the appeal’s outcome.
