The Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) recently declared Abdullahi Bashir Haske, a businessman and son-in-law of former Vice President Atiku Abubakar, wanted in connection with alleged criminal conspiracy and money laundering. The anti-graft agency’s spokesperson, Dele Oyewale, vehemently dismissed any insinuation that Haske’s political ties influenced the decision, labeling such suggestions as “rubbish.” Oyewale clarified in a telephone interview that the commission has been investigating Haske for several years, and he was declared wanted after jumping an administrative bail process.

The official notice from the EFCC, signed by Oyewale and dated August 21, 2025, urged the public to provide information leading to Haske’s arrest. It detailed that Haske, 38, was last known to reside at No. 6, Mosley Road, Ikoyi, and 952/953 Idejo Street, Victoria Island, Lagos. Members of the public were advised to report to the nearest police station or any of the commission’s offices nationwide, including those in major cities like Ibadan, Uyo, Sokoto, Maiduguri, Benin, Makurdi, Kaduna, Ilorin, Enugu, Kano, Lagos, Gombe, Port Harcourt, and Abuja, or via the EFCC’s dedicated telephone line and email address.

However, Haske’s legal team has strongly refuted the EFCC’s action, describing it as a “blatant act of illegality and an abuse of process.” Lead counsel Mr. Nkemakolam Okoro, a partner in the law firm of Dr. M.O. Ubani, SAN, highlighted that there is a pending motion before the Federal High Court, Abuja, challenging the validity of the warrant of arrest previously obtained by the commission. According to court filings, Mr. Haske has consistently cooperated with the EFCC, honoring invitations in July and adhering to all directives, including providing medical documentation following health complications during his detention.

The legal team expressed significant concern that an arrest warrant was sought and obtained despite Haske's compliance and before his agreed return date. Legal experts supporting Haske's position argue that the EFCC’s pre-emptive declaration is a grave violation of court order. They maintain that the August 8 arrest warrant should have led the EFCC to attempt an arrest first, and only report back to the court if unsuccessful, rather than bypassing legal duty to declare him wanted, especially when the warrant itself is under legal challenge.

Observers have characterized the declaration as malicious, defamatory, and intended to tarnish Haske’s reputation. They point out the action was unnecessary, given that no charges have been formally filed against him, and he has continuously shown willingness to cooperate with investigators. Mr. Nkemakolam emphasized the legal principle that a court has inherent jurisdiction to set aside an order obtained by deceit or suppression of facts. Haske's company also affirmed that all executed contracts were duly awarded, executed, and paid for lawfully, countering the EFCC’s narrative. The matter is currently before the Federal High Court, serving as a critical test for judicial independence and the protection of citizens against arbitrary prosecutorial power.