Yahaya Bello: Court Fixes April 24 For Ruling On EFCC’s Plea

Justice Emeka Nwite of the Federal High Court has adjourned sitting in the ongoing alleged money laundering trial of former governor of Kogi State, Yahaya Bello, to 24th April, 2026, to rule on whether or not the prosecution could alter the evidence of its witness by showing him his initial statement to the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC).

The counsel to the former governor, Joseph Daudu (SAN), had objected to the move by the prosecution counsel, Kemi Pinheiro (SAN), to re-present 46, the 12th prosecution witness’s statement to the EFCC.

Daudu argued that, to contradict its witness, the prosecution must first seek the court’s declaration that the witness is hostile.

This followed evidence in court that appeared to contradict what the witness, Abdullahi Jamilu, had written in his initial statement.

The EFCC witness, the owner of Kumfayakum Global Limited, said he converted certain funds deposited in his account by one Abba Adaudu into United States dollars and handed them over to the latter at various times, either at the witness’s office or at the recipient’s office in Abuja.

He was asked whether he could recall delivering the funds at any location other than the offices of both parties. Still, he said he could only affirm that he had delivered the foreign currency at the offices of both parties.

At that point, the prosecution counsel sought to show the witness his earlier statement to the EFCC, but the defendant’s counsel objected.

“My Lord, I object. If learned counsel intends to contradict his witness, he must first apply to have him declared a hostile witness.

“The witness has clearly stated that the transactions took place only at his office and that of Abba Adaudu. Counsel cannot rely on this document to contradict or augment the witness’s oral evidence without following due procedure,” he argued.

The prosecution counsel said he was only showing the document to refresh the witness’s memory, noting that the transactions occurred in 2022.

He referred the Court to Section 239(1), (2) and (3) of the Evidence Act (formerly Section 218), which permits a witness to refresh his memory, while also citing other authorities that supported his stand.

The Defence Counsel, however, argued that the cases cited by the prosecution counsel were not relevant to his objection.

“I contend that my learned counsel is attempting to treat his witness as hostile by confronting him with prior statements already tendered as exhibits.

“This amounts to a contradiction without first seeking leave of the Court to declare the witness hostile, contrary to Section 230 of the Evidence Act.

“I further rely on Ibe v. State (1997) LPELR-1389 (SC), which addresses the consequences of breaching this provision,” Daudu, SAN, stated.

At that point, Justice Nwite adjourned the sitting to the next day, 24 April 2026, for ruling on the matter and continuation of the trial.

Earlier, during his examination-in-chief, PW12 stated that he did not make any cash deposit at the Lokoja branch of Access Bank.

He said the name Abdullahi Jemilu or Jemilu Abdullahi might have been used for the cash deposits, but maintained that he did not make them.

In certain transactions on 8th and 11 October 2021 and 17 March 2022, he stated that one Abba Adaudu was the depositor and that the deposits were made at the Lokoja branch.

According to him, after receiving the funds from Abba Adaudu, he converted them to US dollars and handed them over to ABBA Adaudu.

The witness’s attention was drawn to Exhibit 37(1), statement of account of Kumfayakum Global Limited, specifically the transactions of 15th and 17th December, 2021.

He identified the nature of entries from Keyless Nature Limited: N100m on 15 December 2021 and N400m on 17 December 2021.

The witness also told the Court that ABBA Adaudu owns Court Keyless Nature Limited.

He was also told to confirm the transactions of 18 February 2022, an inflow from Ejadams Essence Limited into his account, which he did.

The Court adjourned until 24 April 2026 for a ruling on whether the prosecution could alter the witness’s evidence, representing it as 36, and for the continuation of the trial.