Tag: Yahaya Bello

An EFCC witness, Mshelia Arhyel Bata, in the alleged money laundering trial of former Gov. Yahaya Bello of Kogi, on Monday, re-affirmed that fund withdrawals by the state government did not breach any banking law.

Bata stated this while being cross-examined by the ex-governor’s counsel, Joseph Daudu, SAN, before Justice Emeka Nwite of the Federal High Court in Abuja.

He also admitted that Bello’s name did not appear as beneficiary in the account statements presented as evidence in court.

Bata, a Compliance Officer with Zenith Bank, testified as 4th prosecution witness (PW-4).

The prosecution had concentrated on withdrawals by Abdulsalam Hudu.

Under cross-examination, Daudu drew the witness’ attention to certain withdrawals by Umar Comfort Olufunke, which he said the prosecution did not mention while being led in evidence-in-chief.

The PW-4 told the court that Olufunke’s withdrawals, in multiples of N10 million, were between December 2017 and April 2018, with beneficiaries being various hotels in Kogi.

The witness also confirmed withdrawals by Alhassan Omakoji between November 2021 and December 2022, which he admitted, did not exceed N10 million per withdrawal.

He said the withdrawals were in line with the limits set by the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN).

He equally admitted that he was not aware of any law that regulates how Kogi Government spends its money or allocation.

“Confirm as compliant officer that when multipples of cheques of N10 million are presented, the customers are merely adhering to the withdrawal limits set by the CBN?” Daudu asked?

“Yes my lord, the N10 million on the cheque is the maximum allowed threshold on cash withdrawal set by CBN,” he said.

When asked if Bello’s name appeared as beneficiary on Exhibit 22 which he (Daudu) and lawyer to the prosecution, Kemi Pinheiro, SAN, had taken him through, Bata said: “No, my lord, the name, Yahaya Bello, does not appear as beneficiary.”

When asked if there is any law that regulates how the state government spends its money, the witness said: “I am not aware of any law that regulates how Kogi State Government spends its money or allocation in its account.”

He said apart from the beneficiaries like the hotels mentioned in the account statements, there was no way he could know what the state’s transactions were meant for.

Justice Nwite then discharged the witness after Pinheiro informed that there was no re-examination.

The witness had, at the last hearing, confirmed that the former governor was neither a signatory to nor connected with any of the accounts presented as evidence.

He admitted that, going through Exhibit 22A, from pages 24 to 413, Bello was not also listed on any of the documents as a beneficiary of any transaction.

The anti-graft agency also called its 5th prosecution witness (PW-5), Jesutoni Akoni, a compliance officer with Ecobank Plc, who was led in evidence by another prosecution counsel, Chukwudi Enebeli, SAN.

The witness tendered a summon letter written to Ecobank, which was admitted in evidence.

The EFCC lawyer also sought to tender a statement of account of Moses Ailetu companies with certificate of identification, from Jan. 1 to Jan. 31, 2016.

Daudu did not oppose it and it was admitted as exhibit.

Enebeli told the witness tto identify the different columns in the statement, which he did.

He was told to confirm cash deposits by the company, which were between N3 million and N20 million, and totalling N57 million.

Akoni, while being cross-examined by Daudu, equally confirmed that former Gov. Bello was not a beneficiary of the said deposits.

“Confirm that any of the deposits you identified carries the name of Yahaya Bello,” Daudu asked.

“None of them carries the name, Yahaya Bello,” she said.

Akoni also admitted that it was not possible to discern the source of funds from the face of the documents.

The prosecution, thereafter, introduced its PW-6, Mohammed Hassan, who was also on subpoena from Keystone Bank.

Hassan, a relationship officer with the bank, was asked to produce the statements of account of Dantata and Sawoe Construction Company.

The documents were tendered as exhibit, along with the certificate of identification, after the defence lawyer did not oppose.

After the PW-6 was cross-examined, the EFCC called its PW-7, Olomotame Egoro, a compliance officer on subpoena from Access Bank.

He was led in evidence by Pinheiro.

He confirmed to the court that he had 12 sets of documents that had been requested.

“We supplied sufficient customer’s details that were extracted from the account opening packages at the time the customer opened the account,” he said.

The defence counsel did not object to the admission of the account statements proper but opposed to some other documents attached which he regarded as irrelevant to what the prosecution requested.

“I am not going to object to the account proper but I will object to all the 12 purported extractions from the account opening documents attached.

“But I will not object to the statements of account, which were subpoenaed,” Daudu stated.

The senior lawyer prayed the court to direct the prosecution to remove “all the extraneous documents attached,” and the prosecution team detached those documents regarded as irrelevant.

Justice Nwite subsequently adjourned the matter until Nov. 11 for continuation of trial.

The Federal High Court in Abuja on Friday, fixed June 26 for ruling on an application by the EFCC to “cross examine” its 3rd prosecution witness (PW-3) in the trial of former Gov. Yahaya Bello of Kogi.

Justice Emeka Nwite adjourned the matter after listening to the submissions by the EFCC and defence lawyers on the prosecution’s move to cross-examine the witness, a position that was rejected by the defendant’s counsel, Joseph Daudu, SAN.

The request was made after Daudu, who appeared for the ex-govenor, concluded his cross examination of the PW-3, Mr Nicholas Ojehomon, an Internal Auditor with American International School, Abuja (AISA).

It would be recalled that during the cross examination by Daudu, the witness was asked specific questions regarding the judgment of the FCT High Court which was admitted in evidence as Exhibit 19.
Shortly after the cross-examination, Justice Nwite asked the counsel who appeared for the EFCC, Olukayode Enitan, SAN, if he would re-examine the witness.
Enitan, however, informed the court that he planned to also cross-examine Ojehomon based on the Exhibit 19.
He told the court that he was not re-examining the PW-3, but cross-examining him on the document admitted in evidence during cross examination by the defence.
“I am not re-examining him, I am cross-examining him because they brought this document, my lord,” he said.
Daudu, 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.
The senior lawyer argued that under the law, if a prosecution chose to cross examine its own witness, such witness had to be declared a “hostile witness” first.
“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,” he argued.
Enitan, on his part, submitted that he had the right to draw the attention of the court to some specific paragraphs in the document, which the defence too had done.
“Do you have any provision of the law to support this counsel?” the judge asked.
“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.
Daudu insisted that Enitan, under the Nigerian law, had no right to cross examine Ojehomon.
He said rather, Section 36 cited by the prosecution allowed him to re-examine the PW-2.
“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,” Daudu said.
Justice Nwite then ordered the parties to address the court on the constitutional of their arguments.
In his address, Daudu maintained that the EFCC’s position was unknown to law.
“My lord, the procedure being sought by the prosecution by refering the witness to the document tendered 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.
Daudu cited two cases to back his argument, including the case of Amobi Amobi.
But Enitan 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” in the case.
He argued that the court, having allowed the defence to make use of the document in their cross examination, disallowing the prosecution to also use the document would be against the principle of fair hearing.
He said when the defence sought to introduce the document, the prosecution team opposed this because the document was not made by the witness and as such, their arguement was that Ojehomon should not be allowed to speak to it under cross examination.
“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,” Enitan said.
Justice Nwite thereafter adjourned to matter until June 26 for ruling.
The court also fixed June 27, July 3 and July 4 for continuation of trial.
Earlier on Friday, Ojehomon was also cross examine by Daudu.
When the lawyer asked him whether he had testified in other courts with respect to the issue of school fees paid by the Bello family to AISA, he responded in the affirmative.
The witness, however, 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 Bello just as he had not said anything negative or adversely against him in the instant charge.
It would be recalled that the PW-3, on Thursday, said there was no transfer of funds from the Kogi Government or any of the local governments in the state to the account of the American International School, Abuja for the purpose of paying the school fees of the ex-governor’s children.
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.