Yahaya Bello’s Trial: EFCC seeks court’s permission to cross-examine witness

The Federal High Court sitting in Abuja, on Friday, fixed June 26 to rule on a request by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) to be allowed to cross-examine the third witness it produced to testify against the former Governor of Kogi State, Alhaji Yahaya Bello.

The anti-graft agency, through its lawyer, Mr Olukayode Enitan, SAN, made the application after the witness, Mr Nicholas Ojehomon, who is an internal auditor at the American International School, Abuja, had concluded his evidence chief in the matter.

The witness had testified before the court that following a letter from the EFCC, the school refunded a total sum of $760,910.84 into a bank account that was provided by the anti-graft agency.

According to the PW-3, the fund was part of advanced tuition fees that were paid for children of the former governor, who are students of the school.

Following the testimony, Bello’s defence team, led by Prof. J. B. Daudu, SAN, grilled the witness on the content of an Abuja High Court judgement that faulted the school for refunding the tuition fees to the EFCC, declaring the action a breach of a contractual agreement.

Trial Justice Emeka Nwite had spite of a stiff opposition from the prosecution, admitted the judgement in evidence and marked it as Exhibit 19.

At the resumed proceeding in the case on Friday, the PW-3 told the court that the said judgement, which was in Suit No: FCT/HC/CV/2574/2023, was between one Mr Ali Bello, who paid the school fees, and the Incorporated Trustees of the American International School.

He confirmed to the court that the former governor was not a defendant in the case that was decided by the FCT High Court.

Meanwhile, shortly after the defence team announced that it had no further question for the witness, the EFCC pleaded to be allowed to also ask him questions pertaining to the content of the judgement.

The agency specifically relied on Section 213(5) of the Evidence Act and Section 36 of the 1999 Constitution, as amended, and applied to ask the witness, under re-examination, to clarify some aspect of his testimony by reading specific portions of Exhibit 19.

It argued that precluding it from asking the witness further questions would occasion a grave miscarriage of justice, as the said exhibit was introduced by the defence team during cross-examination.

However, Bello’s lawyer opposed the request, insisting that the EFCC had no legal right to use re-examination to extract fresh evidence from the witness.

Prof. Daudu, SAN, argued that the prosecution could only re-examine the witness to clear any ambiguity that arose during cross-examination.

He maintained that in the absence of such ambiguity, it would be wrong for the court to allow the EFCC to cross-examine a witness it had already led in evidence.

After he had listened to both sides, Justice Nwite adjourned the case for ruling and continuation of hearing.

Bello, who piloted the affairs of Kogi State from 2016 to 2024, is facing a 19-count charge bordering on his alleged complicity in an N80.2 billion fraud.

EFCC alleged that he used five proxies to acquire 13 choice properties in highbrow areas of Abuja and Dubai.

It told the court that the properties were acquired with proceeds of crime.

Besides, the anti-graft agency alleged that the former governor attempted to conceal over ₦3 bn by handing same to proxies to keep for him.

It further told the court that the defendant wired over $700, 000 to an account he maintained with a bank in the United States of America, USA, in breach of the Money Laundering Prohibition Act.

Among those that were fingered in the alleged fraud included the former governor’s nephew, Ali Bello and four others- Dauda Suleiman, Shehu Bello, Rabiu Musa and Hudu who is currently at large.

According to the EFCC, the defendant, by his action, committed public breach of trust, contrary to section 18(a) and (c) of the Money Laundering Prohibition Act, and punishable under section 15 of the same Act.

The ex-governor had since pleaded not guilty to the charge, even as he was released on bail by the court, pending the determination of allegations against him.