Tag: Yahaya Bello

A Federal High Court in Abuja has scheduled ruling for June 26 in a fresh application by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) for the court’s permission to be allowed to cross-examine its witness in the trial of the ex-governor of Kogi State, Yahaya Bello.

Bello is being prosecuted by the EFCC over alleged money laundering offence involving about N80.2 billion.

Justice Emeka Nwite chose the date yesterday after taking arguments from lawyers to the prosecution and defence on whether or not the fresh application by the EFCC should be allowed.

Lawyer to the prosecution, Olukayode Enitan (SAN), made the application yesterday shortly after defence lawyer, Joseph Daudu (SAN), concluded his cross-examination of the third witness called by the prosecution (PW3), Nicholas Ojehomon, an Internal Auditor with American International School, Abuja (AISA).

When asked by Justice Nwite if he would re-examine Ojehomon, Enitan said he would rather cross-examine the witness in respect of a judgment of the HIgh Court of the Federal Capital Territory (FCT) which was tendered by the defence through the witness.

The prosecuting lawyer said: “I am not re-examining him, I am cross-examining him because they brought this document, my lord.”

READ ALSO: FULL LIST: Nigeria, others not indebted to IMF

Enitan added that it was within his right to draw the court’s attention to some specific paragraphs in the document (marked Exhibit 19), which the defence too had done.

Asked by the judge if he had any provision of the law to support his position, Enitan cited Section 36 of the Constitution.

He added: “They (the prosecution) sought to tender this document, we objected and the court granted their prayer.

“Fair hearing demands that the complainant too has the right to examine this because Section 36 of the Constitution talks of fair hearing.”

Daudu faulted Enitan’s position and argued that what the prosecution sought to do was unknown to law, particularly the Evidence Act.

He added that under the law, if a prosecution chooses to cross-examine its witness, such witness had to first be declared a hostile witness.

Daudu argued that Section 36 cited by the prosecuting lawyer only allows him to re-examine the witness.

He added: “We are not saying that they cannot re-examine the witness. That is what Section 36 of the Constitution says about fair hearing. But if it is to cross-examine him (the witness), he will have to show us the law that backs that.

“He cannot come under the guise of fair hearing to want to cross-examine the witness,” he said.

At that point, Justice Nwite intervened and said if the prosecution was insisting on his position, parties should formally address the court on the issue to enable him give a ruling.

In response to the judge’s directive, Daudu contended that the prosecution’s request to cross-examine PW3 was unknown to law.

He added: “My lord, the procedure that is being sought by the prosecution by referring the witness to the document tendered in Exhibit 19 and by asking him to read paragraph one, without drawing his attention to the issue on how the document affected his evidence-in-chief, the question asked in cross-examination and the ambiguity, which needs clarification, amounts to a strange and unknown procedure not covered by the Evidence Act.”

In his counter argument, Enitan argued that since the court allowed the defence to make use of the document in its cross-examination of the witness, disallowing the prosecution to also use the document would be against the principle of fair hearing.

He noted that when the defence sought to introduce the document, the prosecution opposed it because the document was not made by the witness.

Enitan added that the prosecution’s argument was that PW3 should not be allowed to speak to the document under cross-examination.

He added: “Having brought it in now during the case of the prosecution, particularly during the cross-examination of PW-3, your lordship should not allow them to shut us out, as that would amount to the court allowing them to blow hot and cold.”

Earlier, while being cross-examined by Daudu, the witness said he had testified in other courts in relation to the issue of school fees paid by the Bello family to American International School Abuja (AISA).

Ojehomon admitted testifying in a similar charge involving Ali Bello (the Chief of Staff to Governor Ahmed Ododo of Kogi State).

The witness added that he never said anything adversely against former Governor Bello just as he had not said anything negative or adversely against him in the instant charge.

While testifying on Thursday, the witness said there was no evidence that funds were transferred from the Kogi Government or any of the local governments in the state to AISA’s account for the purpose of paying Bello’s children’s school fees.

Ojehomon also said there was no court order directing AISA to refund the fees paid for Bello’s children to EFCC, adding that there was no judgment that declared the money proceeds of money laundering.

The Federal High Court in Abuja has adjourned the hearing of the alleged money laundering case instituted against the immediate past Governor of Kogi State, Yahaya Bello, by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission to June 26, 27 and July 4 and 5 for ruling on the request by the prosecution to “cross-examine” the 3rd witness and for continuation of trial. 

Justice Emeka Nwite adjourned the hearing after listening to addresses by the prosecution and defence counsels on the Prosecution’s move to initially cross-examine the witness, a position that was rejected by the Defendant’s Counsel, Joseph Daudu, SAN.

When the matter was called for continuation of cross-examination, the Defendant’s counsel asked the witness, Nicholas Ojehomon, whether he had testified in other courts with respect to the issue of school fees paid by the Bello family to AISA, he said yes.

But the witness, an internal auditor at the American International School, Abuja, said he could not mention the exact courts. 

He admitted testifying in a similar charge involving Ali Bello but added that he never said anything adversely against former Governor Yahaya Bello just as he had not said anything negative or adversely against him in the instant charge.

After Daudu SAN concluded the cross-examination of the witness, Nicholas Ojehomon, the EFCC’s lawyer, Olukayode Enitan, SAN, moved to also cross-examine the Commission’s witness on Exhibit 19.

He told the court that he was not re-examining the EFCC’s witness, but cross-examining him because the document was admitted in evidence. 

“I am not re-examining him, I am cross-examining him because they brought this document,” he said.

The Defendant’s lawyer, however, drew the court’s attention to the fact that the prosecution counsel’s position was unknown to law, in line with the Evidence Act. 

“If you want to cross-examine your own witness, you have to first declare him a hostile witness. You cannot cross examine him based on the document,” Daudu SAN argued.

Read Also: No proof of Yahaya Bello’s children’s fees paid from Kogi funds, says witness 

Enitan SAN added that he had the right to draw the attention of the court to some specific paragraphs in the document. 

At this point, the judge asked: “Do you have any provision of the law to support this?”

“I will draw your lordship attention to Section 36 of the Constitution. They sought to tender this document, we objected and the court granted their prayer. Fair hearing demands that the complainant too has the right to examine this because Section 36 of the Constitution talks of fair hearing,” Enitan responded. 

“We are not saying that they cannot re-examine the witness. That is what Section 36 under the law says about fair hearing. But if it is to cross-examine him, he will have to show us the law that backs that. 

“He cannot come under the guise of fair hearing to want to cross-examine the witness,” the Defendant’s lawyer maintained. 

The judge, at the end of the arguments, refused to allow cross-examination of the witness by the EFCC lawyer.

“Under the procedure, the witness gives evidence in chief and the defendant cross examines, then the prosecution re-examines.

“With due respect, what I will do is if you people are so skewed to continue with this, it is better to address me on this and I will take a position,” he stated.

At this point, the prosecution counsel agreed to re-examine the EFCC’s witness and the judge gave him the go-ahead.

“You can re-examine him on that but not to ask questions that will show cross examination,” Justice Nwite said.

However, when the prosecution lawyer proceeded to re-examine the witness, and his questions pointed at cross-examination, as observed by Daudu SAN, the judge insisted that the parties had to address him on the specific issue.

The Defendant’s Counsel, in his address, maintained that the position was unknown to law.

“My lord, the procedure that is being sought by the prosecution by refering the witness to the document tender in Exhibit 19 and by asking him to read paragraph 1, without drawing his attention to the issue on how the document affected his evidence in chief, the question asked in cross-examination, and the ambiguity, which needs clarification, amounts to a strange and unknown procedure not covered by the Evidence Act,” he stated.

Enitan SAN, disagreed, saying that in the case of Amobi Amobi referred to by the defendant’s counsel, the Supreme Court held that the learned trial judge ought to have allowed a re-examination of Exhibit E. 

He said when the defendant sought to introduce the document, the prosecution team “submitted that this document was not made by the witness and as such, he should not be allowed to speak to it under cross examination or allowed to be confronted with it.”

“Having brought it in now, during the case of the prosecution, particularly during the cross examination of PW-3, your lordship should not allow them to shut us out as that would amount to the court allowing them to blow hot and cold,” Pinheiro SAN said.

Justice Nwite thereafter adjourned to June 26, 27 and July 4 and 5 for ruling and continuation of trial.

The 3rd prosecution witness had, at the last hearing on Thursday, 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 International School, Abuja. 

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.

A prosecution witness in the alleged N80.2 billion money laundering case against former Kogi State Governor Yahaya Bello has said he had no evidence that the school fees paid into the account of the American International School, Abuja (AISA) for Bello’s children emanated from either the state’s account or that of any local government.

The prosecution witness, Nicholas Ojehomon, an Internal Auditor at AISA, said this yesterday during the resumed hearing in the case before Justice Emeka Nwite of the Federal High Court in Abuja.

Ojehomon, the third prosecution witness, who was cross-examined by Bello’s lawyer, Joseph Daudu (SAN), looked through the account statement of his school and said neither the names of any of the local governments in the state nor Bello’s appeared in the document.

Asked if other parents paid school fees into AISA bank account, the witness said: “Yes, I confirm other parents pay into the account.”

Read Also: Why I will not step down over Natasha’s sexual allegations, by Akpabio

He also said the names of the parents who pay directly into the school’s account reflect in the statement of account.

In a ruling earlier, Justice Nwite had rejected the objection of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) to the defendant’s move to tender a judgment of the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory (FCT) on the school fees issue.

The matter is in suit number: FCT/HC/CV/2574/2023 between Ali Bello and Incorporated Trustees of American International School.

The judge held that the EFCC’s objection was preemptive, adding that the admissibility of documents is strictly guided by law as far as it satisfies the provision of sections 102 and 104 of the Evidence Act.

The judge listed the criteria to be considered to include “whether (or not) the facts are pleaded, whether the documents are relevant and whether the documents are admissible”.

He said it was glaring that the document sought to be tender in the case of Ali Bello Vs AISA was relevant to the fact in issue.

Justice Nwite said the same document was a certified true copy (CTC) of a judgment of the FCT High Court instituted by Ali Bello.

The judge said the court was inclined to agree with the defendant’s lawyer that the prosecuting lawyer’s argument was preemptive.

He said: “Consequently, the argument of the prosecution that the defence cannot present the document is hereby discountenanced.”

“…The objection of the prosecution is indeed preemptive. Consequently, the objection of the learned counsel to the prosecution is hereby overruled,” he said.

Justice Nwite admitted the document in evidence and marked it as Exhibit 19.

At the resumption of trial, the witness told the court that he had worked for eight years in the school and was employed as an internal auditor.

Further hearing in the case will resume today.

Former Governor of Kogi State, Alhaji Yahaya Bello, has urged Christians to uphold and promote Christ’s timeless values of peace and compassion to touch lives and stimulate development.

Bello made the call in his Easter message,  by his media aide Mr Ohiare Machael, yesterday in Lokoja. The former governor felicitated Christians and encouraged them to be guided by love, sacrifice, peace and unity.

“I congratulate the Christian faithful on the completion of the 40-day Lenten period.

“Your prayers, during the period and beyond, will aid the continued actualisation of the laudable goals of President Bola Tinubu’s administration.

“I believe that the significance of the season and its lessons will transcend religious and cultural boundaries and serve as the bedrock of harmonious coexistence.”

Bello specifically commended the harmonious relationship between Christians in Kogi State and adherents of other faiths.

Read Also: Kaigama to Nigerian leaders: Embrace selflessness

He urged Kogi people to continue to support the administration of his successor, Governor Usman Ododo, in delivering the dividends of democracy to everyone, irrespective of religion or ethnicity.

The former governor prayed for God’s continued guidance and protection over the nation and its leadership and urged Nigerians to work together towards a brighter future for all.

Bello enjoined Nigerians to continue to support the administration of President Tinubu.

He stressed that the current administration under President Tinubu has turned the economy around in a very short period.

Bello wished all Christians a joyous Easter celebration and prayed for lasting peace and progress in our dear nation.

Former Governor of Kogi State, Alhaji Yahaya Bello, has petitioned the Inspector General of Police (IGP) over alleged defamatory statements made against him by the suspended senator representing Kogi Central Senatorial District in the National Assembly, Sen. Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan.

In the petition, written and signed by his solicitor, Mr. N.A. Abubakar Esq, to the IGP on Wednesday, Bello called on the Nigeria Police Force to invite Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan to substantiate her allegation against him with credible evidence.

“Where she fails to do so, cause her to be arrested and prosecuted in accordance with the provisions of the law for criminal defamation, inciting public disturbance and spreading false information injurious to public peace,” the lawyer wrote.

He said the utterances made against the former governor were not only false, reckless and inciting, but “they constitute serious criminal defamation, false accusation and incitement to public disorder, all of which are offences under the Nigerian law.”

The former governor has also written to Senator Akpoti-Uduaghan, through his Counsels, Chief R.O. Balogun, SAN & Co, demanding retraction and public apology over defamatory statements made against him in two national dailies, or face legal consequences.

“Our client’s attention has been drawn to a most disturbing, damaging and criminally defamatory statement made by Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan, representing Kogi Central Senatorial District, during her public address at a political event tagged ‘Homecoming Rally’ held on Tuesday, April 1, 2025, in Okehi LGA of Kogi State.

Read Also: Rivers: Only police, EFCC, ICPC can probe Fubara, says Ahamba

“That while addressing attendees at the rally, Senator Akpoti-Uduaghan falsely and maliciously uttered the following words in reference to our client: ‘(Senate President Godswill) Akpabio sent for Yahaya Bello. And it was actually Senator Asuquo from Cross River that drove Yahaya Bello from Hilton Hotel.

“I was informed of everything and what I got to know of the meeting was in two folds. He told him to commence my recall and that he was going to fund it – of course, monies changed hands that night.

“The second thing he told him was that he should try and kill me. I didn’t make this public, but I wrote to the IG of Police. Akpabio told Yahaya Bello. He told him that he should make sure that killing me does not happen in Abuja, that it should be done here, so it would seem as if it’s the people that killed me here …’

“That these utterances are not only false, reckless and inciting, but they constitute serious criminal defamation, false accusation and incitement to public disorder, all of which are offences under Nigerian law,” Bello’s lawyer, Abubakar, wrote in the petition to the IGP.

He said Section 24(1) (b) of the Cybercrimes (Prohibition, Prevention, Etc.) Act, 2015, penalises a person who knowingly or intentionally sends false messages or information through a computer or network likely to cause harm to the reputation of another person.

He added that, in Mrs. Akpoti-Uduaghan’s case, she caused videos of her above statement to be widely circulated online where it has continued to trend till date with the clear intention of causing harm to the reputation of the former governor against Sections 114 and 140 of the Penal Code (applicable in Northern Nigeria) – which criminalises giving false information with intent to mislead public officers or the public.

“By accusing our client of plotting an assassination and naming him as a co-conspirator in a purported murder plot (with an attempt to disguise the killing as mob or ethnic violence), Sen. Akpoti-Uduaghan has: “Gravely damaged our client’s reputation by portraying him as a violent and vengeful political actor and misled the public and tried to incite ethnic and political distrust, especially among clans of Ebiraland in particular and the people of Kogi Central in general.

“Brought his name into disrepute on the basis of an allegation so weighty that, if left unchallenged, could harm his political career and personal safety; and abused her parliamentary status and platform by propagating such falsehoods without evidence, in a very public and politically charged setting,” the solicitor said.

He added, “Our Client states that he has long considered Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan as unhinged and apparently possessed of a schizophrenic disorder, characterized by manic narcissism, wild hallucinations, delusions, disorganized thinking and an incurable incontinence with emotions and social interactions – hence his patient indulgence of her in the past while he was Governor in Kogi State when he restrained himself many times from seeking legal redress even though she frequently harassed him in the media with all sorts of horrible and damaging lies.

“Our client, however, asserts that he has long ended his stewardship of Kogi State as Governor and moved on to other pursuits – and that he no longer feels the same duty of paternalistic indulgence which he had for all Kogites as his citizens while in Office, and still exhibits till today, hence his insistence on full redress for her (Akpoti-Uduaghan’s) current accusations which, as usual, are totally fabricated and utterly baseless.”

He urged the IGP to expedite action on the petition, stating that “failure to act in the circumstances of these egregious offences by Mrs. Akpoti-Uduaghan will embolden others to also weaponise political platforms for dangerous falsehoods and criminal misrepresentation, especially with an eye to gaining dishonest advantage over opponents, thus endangering our democracy.”

• Court to rule May 8 on whether to admit judgment of another court

A Federal High Court in Abuja yesterday admitted in evidence receipts of school fees paid to the American International School, Abuja (AISA) in favour of the children of the former Governor of Kogi State, Yahaya Bello.

The receipts were among other documents tendered by the prosecution at the resumed hearing in the trial of the ex-governor on an N80.2 billion money laundering charge.

Prosecuting lawyer, Kemi Pinheiro (SAN) tendered the documents through the third prosecution witness, Nicholas Ohehomon, who told the court that the receipts were issued in the names of four of the defendant’s children.

Ohehomon, who started his testimony on Thursday, had identified himself as an Internal Auditor with the AISA.

The witness was, during Friday’s proceedings, handed a document marked Exhibit 13P1, which he identified as a telex from the United Bank for Africa (UBA), sent by a relative of the defendant, Ali Bello, to the AISA.

Read Also: RONKE OSHODI-OKE: Nollywood will frustrate you

He also identified other documents marked as Exhibits 13P2 to 13P4 as evidence of transfers made by Forza Oil and Gas in favour of the defendant’s children.

Ohehomon equally identified another document marked Exhibit 13P5 as a telex sent from Whales Oil and Gas to the AISA.

When asked to confirm if the defendant’s name was reflected on the documents, the witness said Bello’s name was cont contained in the documents.

Under cross-examination, defence lawyer, Joseph Daudu (SAN) sought to tender a bundle of documents he claimed was a judgment of the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory (FCT) in relation to a suit between Ali Bello and the AISA over the school fees payment.

Pinheiro objected, thereby igniting a session of arguments that lasted a while.

The prosecuting lawyer argued that the defendant could not tender documents while the prosecution was yet to close its case.

He cited Section 232 of the Evidence Act and contended that the only kind of documents that the prosecution could tender during cross examination are previous statements in writing of a witness for the purpose of contracting or challenging his/her current testimony.

Pinheiro urged the court to reject the document, arguing that the defence failed to demonstrate that it (document) was admissible under Section 232 of the Evidence Act.

Responding, Daudu said the admissibility of documents in criminal or civil cases is governed strictly by the principles of relevance to the proceedings at hand.

Daudu added that once the court finds that the document is relevant, it becomes automatically admissible.

“That is what is contained in Sections 4, 5 and 6 of the Evidence Act, 2011.

“The question for your lordship is, is this document relevant and admissible in line with the provision of the Evidence Act?

“The answer has been provided by my learned brother silk for the prosecution when he referred to the content of the judgment and read out a portion which says that a particular relief was refused and that the fee agreement was upheld in the same judgment,” Daudu said.

The defence lawyer said the copy of the judgment of the High Court of the FCT is a public document which reflected AISA as a party in the case.

He added that as far as the defendant was concerned, the witness was the sole witness of AISA in the case that led to the judgment.

Daudu argued that the objection raised by the prosecution was speculative because it (the prosecution) did not know what the defence wants to do with the documents.

He contended that because the prosecution was not comfortable with the document cannot stop its admissibility.

After taking arguments on whether or not the judgment could be admitted, Justice Emeka Nwite adjourned till May 8 for ruling and continuation of trial.

• Witness says ex-governor paid children’s school fees in advance

A Federal High Court in Abuja yesterday heard that former Kogi State Governor Yahaya Bello was not involved in the operation of the state’s Government House’s bank account domiciled at a commercial bank.

A Compliant Officer with the bank, Mrs. Abimbola Williams, stated this while testifying as the second prosecution witness in the alleged N80.2 billion money laundering trial of the ex-CBN governor.

Mrs. Williams, who was cross-examined by Bello’s lawyer, Joseph Daudu (SAN), said the forme governor’s name did not feature in all the withdrawals made from the account 1003889575 domiciled in the Lokoja, Kogi State capital, branch of the bank while the defendant was in office.

She added that Bello’s name also did not reflect in the account opening documents and the statements of account, which were later tended in court.

The witness said as a Compliance Officer, her duties include protecting the integrity of the bank from legal penalty, reputational damage and financial losses.

Mrs. Williams identified the three signatories to the account, including that of Alhaji Yakubu Ismail, said to be a permanent secretary.

The witness said she was not the Accounts Officer in charge of the Kogi Government House’s account and that the account is domiciled in Lokoja and not in Area 3 of Abuja, where she works.

Led in evidence by the prosecuting lawyer, Kemi Pinheiro (SAN), Mrs. Williams identified series of withdrawals from the account through cheques.

The witness named Abdulsalami Hudu as the person handling fund withdrawals on behalf of the Kogi Government House.

She recalled that on December 12, 2018, 10 transactions were carried out on the account with N10 million withdraw in each transaction.

Mrs. Williams said the 10 transactions had the same narration – cheque withdrawal in favour of Abdulsalam Hudu.

Read Also:Alleged N80.2b fraud: Yahaya Bello’s name not reflected on N550m bought in Abuja, EFCC witness claims

Still reading from the account statement, the witness said it was evident in the statement that withdrawals from the account went mainly to two beneficiary – Abdul Salam Hudu and Aminu J. O.

According to her, the withdrawals were done by cheques and in tranches, with each maximum withdrawal pegged at N10 million.

Mrs. Williams explained that the cheques were presented across the counter and that the money was paid in cash or deposited into a beneficiary’s account.

The witness averred that it was not specific if the withdrawals were in cash.

The third prosecution witness, Nicholas Ohehomon, who described himself as an Internal Auditor in the American International School, said Bello had an agreement with the school to pay upfront the school fees of his five children for all the years they were to spend in the school.

Ohehomon added that there was also an arrangement for the payment of the fees of “future children”.

The prosecution tendered through Ohehomon some documents on Bello’s children’s studentship in the school, including admission letters and the receipts of the fees paid by the defendant.

The witness, who also tendered the school’s statements of account, announced the different classes the children were admitted into.

A copy of the contractual agreement between the defendant and the school for upfront payment of school fees for his children was also tendered.

The trial continues today.