Yahaya Bello vs EFCC
The Federal High Court in Abuja, on Tuesday, fixed March 9 for ruling on the admissibility of a document sought to be tendered by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) in the ongoing trial of former Gov. Yahaya Bello of Kogi on
alleged money laundering charge.
Justice Emeka Nwite fixed the date after listening to the prosecution and defence lawyers’ arguments for and against the admissibility of the property-related document.
Former governor’s counsel, Joseph Daudu, SAN, had kicked against its admissibility on the ground that the document was not before the court during the examination-in-chief of the 10th prosecution witness (PW-10), Mahmoud Abdulazeez.
Earlier, the PW-8, Gabriel Ochoche, while being cross-examined by Paul Daudu, SAN, who represented Mr Bello, had said he could not link the name of the former governor to any of the transactions before the court.
The witness also admitted that he did not have any direct interpersonal relationship with the signatories to the account of a company, Kumfayakum Global Limited, which was presented as exhibit.
This was after he was told to confirm the account opening package and statement of account of the company, covering Jan. 1, 2018 to Dec. 31, 2024.
Ochoche, a Compliance Officer with Wema Bank, admitted that, from the face of the document, he could not tell what a particular inflow of N100 million from Keyless Nature Limited, on Dec. 15, 2021, was meant for.
The witness, who said he had worked with Wema Bank for four years, with seven years’ experience in the banking sector, also noted that he was not the account manager for the company’s account.
“Do you know the business relationship between Keyless Nature Limited and Kumfayakum Global Limited?” Daudu asked.
“No, I do not,” the witness responded.
The witness said the same thing of a Real Time Gross Settlement inflow from Access Bank, on Dec. 17, 2021, by the order of Keyless Nature Limited.
He admitted that it was only the account holders who would know why the funds were paid and received.
The witness was thereafter asked to identify former Governor Yahaya Bello.
“Please look at the defendant. Do you know him?” the counsel asked.
“Yes, I know him as the former Governor of Kogi State,” Ochoche responded.
“In all the inflows and outflows drawn to your attention by learned senior counsel for the prosecution, did the name Yahaya Bello appear anywhere in Exhibit 37?” Daudu asked.
“It did not appear in any of the transactions drawn to my attention,” the witness said.
He also admitted that apart from the said transactions, Yahaya Bello’s name did not appear anywhere in Exhibit 37.
After the PW-9, Oluwafemi Victoria, a Compliance Officer with Polaris Bank, testified with respect to transactions conducted on the accounts under investigation, the prosecution counsel, Kayode Enitan, SAN, called its 10th prosecution witness (PW-10) , Mahmoud Abdulazeez.
During the examination-in-chief of the PW-10, a staff of Dantata & Sawoe Construction Company, he informed the court that he had been with the company since 2016 and currently serves as the Chief Accountant and Head of the Accounts Department.
When asked to give evidence on a property located at Plot 1160, Cadastral Zone C03, Gwarinpa II District, Abuja, he testified that a Deed of Assignment was executed between Mubarak Dantata on behalf of Dantata & Sawoe Construction Company and Ali Bello on behalf of Azba Real Estate Limited.
The prosecution lawyer then sought to link Maigari Murtala, who allegedly effected payments for the said property with the parties to the Deed of Assignment.
The defence counsel, however, objected, arguing that the Deed of Assignment was not before the court and that any question relating to its contents would be improper in its absence.
He contended that the prosecution’s line of questioning revolved around an unseen document not yet tendered in evidence.
The EFCC’s lawyer then sought to tender certain documents which the witness stated had been submitted to the EFCC during investigation but Joseph Daudu, SAN, who took over the case from Paul, objected.
He argued that the documents, being the Deed of Assignment and the Irrevocable Power of Attorney, were registrable instruments relating to the title of land and, having not been shown to be registered, were inadmissible in both civil and criminal proceedings.
In response, Kemi Pinheiro, SAN, who led the prosecution team, argued that the witness had already led oral evidence of the transaction and receipt of funds, and that the documents were being tendered to anchor that oral testimony, not to prove title to land.
However, Daudu maintained that the documents lacked a consideration clause evidencing the transaction and were therefore inadmissible.
Justice Nwite thereafter adjourned sitting until March 9 for ruling on the admissibility of the documents and continuation of trial.
