Yahaya Bello vs EFCC
June 27, 2025
The Economic and Financial Crimes Commission, EFCC, on Friday opposed an application filed by former Kogi State Governor, Yahaya Adoza Bello, seeking leave of court to travel abroad for medical treatment.
Daudu informed the court that the application was brought pursuant to Section 173(2)(a) of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act (ACJA) and under the court’s inherent jurisdiction.
He said the application was backed by a 22-paragraph affidavit deposed to by the defendant himself, including annexures such as a medical report and a letter from a consultant cardiologist.
He further argued that Bello had not travelled outside Nigeria in over eight years and now required urgent medical attention which, according to him, cannot be provided even in the hospital he built.
“The subject of this application is the release of his passport, which was surrendered as part of his bail conditions. What should be considered is not whether there are alternatives in Nigeria but whether the defendant poses a flight risk,” he said.
He also claimed that the defendant has no criminal record abroad and may not pose a flight risk. “He has no criminal record in those countries. The defendant is not a flight risk and will return before the end of August. My lord can even specify a return date,” he said.
However, prosecuting counsel, Kemi Pinheiro, SAN, strongly objected to the application, describing it as an abuse of court process. He argued that Bello had previously filed similar applications before another court, the current court and the FCT High Court, seeking the same relief, which he said was improper and confusing.
Pinheiro advanced five main reasons the application should be denied. First, he said the motion was “technically incompetent” as the sureties to Bello’s bail were not informed or included in the application, thereby raising questions about their liability if the defendant fails to return.
He also emphasized that the case involved money laundering, and money laundering is international in nature, referencing charges related to properties in Dubai and funds in bank accounts in the US and UK.
“The defendant is already under a red notice and international alert. He risks being arrested abroad and extradited. He could be ‘Hushpuppied’ from Dubai,” Pinheiro warned, alluding to a known cybercrime case.
The prosecution further discredited the medical report submitted by the defence, noting that the doctor who signed it failed to indicate his qualifications or specialization.
He argued that the health concerns mentioned, such as low potassium and mild hypertension, could be managed locally. “He says he has low potassium; bananas and pawpaw will handle that. This is not sufficient reason to fly to the UK,” he said.
He also pointed out the irony that Bello had boasted during his tenure of building an ultra-modern hospital in Kogi State. “From Abuja to Lokoja is two hours. I advise him to visit that hospital rather than take a six-hour flight abroad,” he said.
In his reply on points of law, Daudu insisted that the sureties were not required to be parties to the motion and argued that the red notice previously issued by EFCC had lapsed following Bello’s arraignment in Nigeria. He urged the court to exercise its discretion in favour of the defendant.
Meanwhile, earlier in the proceedings, cross-examination of Prosecution Witness 4, PW4, Aryan Mashelia Bata, a Compliance Officer with Zenith Bank Plc, continued. The defence questioned his jurisdiction over several of the bank accounts admitted as exhibits, many of which were outside the branches under his direct supervision.
Clarifying an earlier issue raised by the prosecution, PW4 told the court that he wished to place it on record that he was not harassed by Yahaya Bello’s security team, but rather experienced difficulty in finding a seat while in court.
“I want it on record that the incident happened while I was trying to get a seat. I later got one and I have no issue with anyone,” he said.
Following all submissions, Justice Emeka Nwite adjourned the matter to July 3 and 4, 2025, for continuation of trial and fixed July 21, 2025, for ruling on the defendant’s application to travel abroad.
