Justice Emeka Nwite of the Federal High Court, Abuja, on Thursday, rejected a request by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) to ‘cross-examine’ its third witness in the ongoing trial of alleged money laundering case against the immediate past Governor of Kogi State, Yahaya Bello.
While delivering his ruling, Justice Nwite noted that there was no provision in law that permits the court to allow the prosecution to re-examine its witness in the manner proposed by anti-graft agency.
This was just as the EFCC lawyer, Kemi Pinheiro, during the proceedings, described the case instituted against the former governor as a political case.
He emphasised that he was not prosecuting a bank official, but a political figure, “one who had even aspired to contest for Presidency”.
He said this while arguments were being raised on whether the defence counsel would cross-examine the 4th witness when the prosecution concluded its examination at 2.30pm or wait till the next day.
Responding, the judge said, “Political? If that is the case, then those handling political cases should prepare to take over the matter.”
On the ruling against the cross-examination of PW3 by the EFCC, the judge said, “I must agree with the learned counsel to the defendant that the EFCC can only cross-examine its oo witness after it has declared such witness a hostile witness.
“The argument of the learned counsel to the prosecution is misconceived…This honourable court is not shutting the prosecution from re-examining the witness, but must restrict itself to pages 1, 14 and 15 of Exhibit 19 where issues were addressed by the defense.
“The prosecution is not allowed to re-examine the witness outside the pages prescribed.”
Nicholas Ojehomon, an internal auditor at the American International School, Abuja, had, at the last hearing, said there was no wired transfer of fees from the Kogi State Government or any of the local Governments in the state to the account of the American school.
On cross-examination, he also read out a part of a previous Federal Capital Territory High Court judgment that said there was no court order for AISA to return fees to EFCC or any judgment declaring the money as proceeds of money laundering.
After a brief re-examination, and the withdrawal of an earlier question posed to the witness, the EFCC lawyer, Kemi Pinheiro, SAN, told the court that the Commission had three other witnesses for the day.
During examination, Mshelia Arhyel Bata, a Compliance Officer with Zenith Bank, confirmed that certificates of identification were attached to the statements of accounts provided by the bank in the seven sets of documents presented, as requested in a subpoena.
The court, thereafter, admitted the statements of account of Kogi State Government House Administration, and six others, as exhibits.
The witness, on subpoena, narrated to the court, the withdrawal limits allowed for individuals, corporate organisations and government, saying that before the cashless policy, it was pegged at N10 million for government and N500, 000 for individuals.
The prosecution then took the witness to the 23rd of May, 2016 on the printed documents, and pointed at a transaction under the name, Abdulsalami Hudu.
When the witness was asked to explain the transaction, he said, “It is a cash withdrawal of N10 million in accordance with the then maximum threshold allowed for cheque withdrawal per transaction.”
He, however, said he had nine cash transactions on the same date.
The witness was then told to go to the credit transactions of 30th January, 2018, and he confirmed that there were 10 separate credits of various sums, totalling about N1.092bn.
When asked to mention the total amount of withdrawals, the Defendant’s counsel cut in, saying, “He (Pinheiro, SAN), knows that they are for security votes.”
The witness aggregated the total amount of withdrawals to N1.968 billion, saying they were on different dates.
He also read out the inflow and outflow between 2nd of May 2018 and 19th May, 2018.
After the examination by the prosecution, the judge adjourned to tomorrow, June 27, for cross-examination by the Defendant’s Counsel.
In a related case, which was heard on Wednesday, the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory High Court was told that Yahaya Bello and two other persons standing trial on alleged money laundering have no record of property purchase with EFAB Property Company.
A witness of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC), Mr Segun Adeleke also informed the court that EFAB has no records of any money payment or any transactions with the former governor and his co-defendants.
Adeleke, who is General Manager of EFAB Property Limited, made the clarifications during the resumption of the case between the EFCC on one side and Yahaya Bello, Umar Shuaib Oricha and Abdulsalami Hudu on the other side.
When the case was called on Wednesday for continuation of hearing, Adeleke, who is the Second Prosecution Witness, PW2, told the court that he had no dealings with the three defendants throughout the transactions on the property that is the subject of the case.
When asked by Bello’s lawyer, Mr J. B Daudu, SAN, to also confirm if the names of the defendants appeared on any of the transaction documents, the witness said he did not know any of the three defendants.
“This is the first time I am seeing His Excellency (Yahaya Bello) in person, although I have seen him before in print and electronic media but not in any transaction,” he stressed.
The First Prosecution Witness, PW1, Fabian Nwora, had also confirmed to the court that none of the three defendants in the case paid money into the account of his company, EFAB Property Limited.
Nwora, who is the Managing Director and Chief Executive Officer of the company, said he knows the former governor, but maintained that his name did not feature in the transaction being referred to.
He said he opened negotiations on the said property with one Shehu Bello but that the negotiations were concluded by Segun Adeleke, who is the EFCC’s second witness (PW2).
Nwora had, at a previous hearing, testified that he was invited to the EFCC on February 8, 2023, regarding a transaction between Shehu Bello and EFAB Property Limited on a property located at No. 1 Ikogosi Street, Maitama, noting that it was the said Shehu Bello that approached him for the property.
Adeleke, while being examined by the Prosecution Counsel, Kemi Pinheiro, SAN, reiterated that, in 2020, his chairman, Nwora, gave him the brief of the property, which Shehu Bello showed interest in.
He said the deal was concluded and N500 million paid for the said property.
When the prosecution lawyer asked what happened afterwards, the witness said Shehu Bello returned to their office, with the agreement, to tell his chairman that he was no longer interested in the property as a result of EFCC investigation.
“My chairman said he would revert after consulting with our company secretary,” he stated.
The EFCC lawyer also asked about some documents issued to one Nuhu Muhammed with respect to a property in the Gwarinpa area of the Federal Capital Territory.
The witness confirmed that the documents were issued to the said Nuhu Muhammed after he purchased one of the units of detached bungalows.
At that point, the Defence Counsel, Joseph Daudu, SAN, objected, saying, “My lord, there is a clear disconnect between the documents sought to be tendered and the foundation laid by the witness himself.”
The prosecution, however, said the objection was misconceived and it was subsequently overruled by the judge.
Responding while being cross-examined by the defence counsel, the witness confirmed that he had testified to a similar evidence at the Federal High Court before Justice Emeka Nwite.
He admitted that he was brought into the transaction after the process had commenced, and that he did not initiate it.
Daudu told the witness that while giving evidence before Justice Emeka Nwite, he had said that funds for the said property at Gwarinpa were transferred at once.
He added that he had now contradicted himself before Justice Maryann Anenih by saying it was done in two tranches.
The witness said it was in two tranches and that he had receipts, but admitted later that he did not know the said Nuhu Muhammed.
Another witness, on subpoena, Mrs Williams Abimbola, tendered the statement of account of Kogi State Government House, along with the Certificate of Identification.
The defence counsel said they would speak to the document appropriately in the course of the trial.
Justice Maryann Anenih thereafter adjourned the case to October 8, 9, and November 12, 13, 2025, for continuation of hearing.
The court’s decision in Yahaya Bello’s graft trial raises questions about the prosecution’s strategy and the case’s implications. Do you think the EFCC’s claim that the case is political adds a new layer of complexity to the trial?