The Federal High Court in Abuja on Friday adjourned the alleged N80 billion money laundering case filed against former Kogi State Governor, Yahaya Bello, by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) to May 6.
Justice Emeka Nwite adjourned the trial to allow more time for Bello’s lawyer, Joseph Daudu, SAN, to continue the cross-examination of the EFCC’s 12th prosecution witness, Abdullahi Jamilu, a Bureau de Change operator.
The case centres on allegations that Bello and others conspired in February 2016 to convert N80,246,470,088.88 allegedly obtained through a criminal breach of trust, contrary to the Money Laundering (Prohibition) Act, 2011 (as amended).
Bello has denied the charges, paving the way for a full trial.
What they said
During the witness’s examination-in-chief by EFCC lawyer, Kemi Pinheiro, SAN, Jamilu said he recalled giving one Ali, a police officer, some dollars on behalf of Abba Adaudu, NAN reports.
He also confirmed that the companies mentioned earlier before the court—Aleshua Services, Wales Oil and Gas, and Forza Oil and Gas—were owned by his colleagues.
- The witness explained that whenever he did not have sufficient dollar inflows to effect transfers, he usually contacted his colleagues and agreed on a rate.
- He stated that the instruction to pay the American International School Abuja (AISA), where Bello’s children were schooling, was given by Adaudu, who, according to him, had approached him in the company of some friends for the transaction.
- The witness told the court that all the transfers were successfully made to AISA, after which he forwarded the transfer receipts to Adaudu, NAN reports.
Jamilu confirmed giving his initial statement to the anti-graft agency on May 10, 2022.
While being cross-examined by Bello’s lawyer, Daudu, however, he admitted that issues relating to Wales Oil and Gas, Forza, and Aleshua were not included in one of the identified exhibits before the court (Exhibit 46)—his initial statement to the EFCC.
The witness also recalled that he had given similar evidence before Justice Obiora Egwuatu, a brother judge at the Federal High Court, Abuja.
He confirmed that the defendants in that case were Ali Bello, Abah Adaudu, Yakubu Siyaka Adabenege, and Iyadi Sadat.
With the court’s approval, Daudu showed the witness Exhibit 47, which contained transactions.
The witness admitted that the transactions he discussed in Justice Egwuatu’s court were the same as those he referred to in this case.
He added that he asked his colleagues to help effect dollar transfer payments because his own accounts could not directly handle such transactions.
After hearing from him, Justice Nwite adjourned the matter until May 6 and May 7 for the continuation of the cross-examination of PW-12.
Backstory
The case against Bello has lingered for several months, marked by public confrontations between the EFCC and the former governor.
The anti-graft agency had earlier declared Bello wanted, citing difficulties in effecting his arrest.
It also accused the Kogi State Government of shielding him by invoking immunity provisions.
Eventually, Bello was arrested and arraigned, while another fraud-related case was also filed against him at the FCT High Court.
The current trial at the Federal High Court represents one of the most prominent phases of the EFCC’s case against him.
What you should know
Earlier in the trial, the EFCC called Nicholas Ohehomon, a representative of the American International School (AIS), as a prosecution witness. His testimony focused on school fees paid for Bello’s children, which the EFCC alleges were proceeds of crime.
- The witness tendered AIS statements of account, admission letters, and payment receipts through EFCC counsel, Kemi Pinheiro, SAN.
- He confirmed the children’s enrolment and explained that the school operated a postpaid fee arrangement until graduation.
- Bello’s counsel sought to tender a certified true copy of an FCT High Court judgment involving AIS to challenge the EFCC’s claims about the origin of the funds.
Justice Nwite overruled the EFCC’s objection, describing it as pre-emptive, and admitted the document into evidence, noting that its relevance and admissibility would ultimately be determined in the context of the facts pleaded before the court.
