From Victor Osula, Abuja
A Federal Capital Territory High Court has adjourned trial in the alleged money laundering case against the immediate past Governor of Kogi State, Yahaya Bello, to 3rd, 24th April, and 6th May, 2024.
Justice Maryann Anenih adjourned the case for continuation of hearing after the first witness, Fabian Nworah was called to testify on Wednesday.
Bello alongside two officials of the Kogi State Government – Oricha and Abdulsalami Hudu, is facing trial over his alleged complicity in a N110 billion fraud.
The EFCC alleged that the former governor misused state funds to acquire property including No. 35 Danube Street, Maitama District, Abuja (N950 million), No. 1160 Cadastral Zone C03, Gwarimpa II District, Abuja (N100 million), and No. 2 Justice Chukwudifu Oputa Street, Asokoro, Abuja (N920 million).
Other properties the defendants allegedly acquired with funds stolen from the Kogi state treasury, included Block D Manzini Street, Wuse Zone 4, Abuja (N170 million), Hotel Apartment Community: Burj Khalifa, Dubai (Five Million, Six Hundred and Ninety-Eight Thousand, Eight Hundred and Eighty-Eight Dirhams), Block 18, Gwelo Street, Wuse Zone 4, Abuja (N60 million), and No. 9 Benghazi Street, Wuse Zone 4, Abuja (N310.4 million).
The defendants were accused of transferring $570,330 and $556,265 to TD Bank, USA, and possessing unlawfully obtained property, including N677.8 million from Bespoque Business Solution Limited.
Upon resumption of trial on Wednesday, Bello and his co-defendants opposed the proceedings after the Prosecution Counsel Kemi Pinheiro, SAN, informed the court that he had five witnesses to call for the day.
The defendants contended that the EFCC failed to furnish them with some of the proof of evidence that would be relied on in their prosecution.
Counsel for the 1st and 2nd Defendants, Joseph Daudu, SAN, argued that the prosecution had not made the statements on oath of the 2nd Defendant available to the defence team. He also objected to the witness presented by the prosecution, arguing that the defendants had no prior knowledge of the witness and were only seeing him in court for the first time.
“The statements of the second defendant have not been served on us to be able to know if we will be able to represent him or not. So, it is a serious handicap on us. They need to serve us all the statements made by the defendants. Iunderstand the first defendant has not made a statement. Fortunately, we are still within the house keeping stage of the proceeding.
“Mine is not a comment but an observation my lord. My application is for the court to order the prosecution to provide us with the statements of the 2nd and 3rd defendants.
“I am also applying that the court order the prosecution to provide us with copies of recovered digital device and the report or the extract therefrom mentioned on Page 14 of Volume 1 of the proof of evidence and the report of the forensic expert if any. I am following the procedure followed in Okoye against the Commissioner of Police, which was adopted by the Supreme Court in Okemini Vs Comm of Police”, Abubakar Aliyu, SAN, Counsel for the 3rd Defendant addeda.
“The constitutional provision, which they rely on, does not imply that the prosecution should provide all the documents which it relies on. The law only provides that the prosecution should oblige the defence with all the documents requested for”, Pinheiro argued, adding that the proof of evidence had been served on the defendants on November 27.
Giving his testimony after Justice Anenih overruled an objection by the defendants, the witness, who is the owner of EFAB property, narrated how his company, in 2020, sold a property situated at No 1 Ikobosi Street, Maitama Abuja, to one Shehu Bello for the sum of N550 million.
According to the witness, sometime in 2023, Bello returned all the documents relating to the property and informed his company that the EFCC was being investigated by the EFCC.
Nwaora told the court that the EFCC later summoned him, after which he was made to refund the money to an account that was provided by the anti-graft agency.
Justice Anenih subsequently adjourned further hearing on the matter till April 3.
