A witness in the alleged N8.7 billion money laundering case involving former Attorney-General of the Federation, Abubakar Malami, has told the Federal High Court in Abuja that Zenith Bank submitted suspicious transaction reports connected to accounts linked to the former minister.
The witness, Mashelia Arhyel Bata, who works as a compliance officer with the bank, gave the testimony on Wednesday before Justice Joyce Abdulmalik at the Federal High Court in Maitama, Abuja.
Malami is currently facing trial alongside his wife, Hajia Bashir Asabe, and his son, Abubakar Abdulaziz Malami, in a case filed by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission over alleged conspiracy, concealment, and laundering of N8.7 billion said to be proceeds of illegal activities.
While being questioned by the defence lawyer, Adebayo Adedeji (SAN), the witness admitted that the deposits made into the accounts followed the operational guidelines of the Central Bank of Nigeria.
However, he explained that the bank still reported the transactions because it was required by law to flag suspicious financial activities.
According to him, Zenith Bank submitted the suspicious transaction reports as part of its legal and regulatory responsibilities.
The courtroom briefly witnessed arguments when the prosecution lawyer, J.S. Okutepa (SAN), asked the witness to explain what qualifies as a suspicious transaction report.
The defence objected to the question, insisting there was no confusion in the earlier testimony that needed clarification.
Despite the objection, Justice Abdulmalik allowed the question after listening to legal arguments from the prosecution.
The witness later explained that banks usually report transactions when money enters accounts repeatedly in unusual patterns or movements that appear suspicious.
He added that such transactions are normally escalated to the Nigerian Financial Intelligence Unit for further monitoring.
Bata also clarified that his role in the bank mainly involves responding to requests from law enforcement agencies and handling compliance matters, noting that he was not the direct account officer for the accounts involved in the case.
After his testimony, the court discharged the witness and postponed further hearing in the matter until May 22.