₦airaland Forum

The witness also admitted that there was no transfer bearing the name Yahaya Bello in the documents.

The third prosecution witness in the alleged money laundering case instituted by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) against the immediate past governor of Kogi State, Yahaya Bello, admitted before the Federal High Court in Abuja, on Thursday, that 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.

During cross-examination by the Defendant’s counsel, Joseph Daudu, SAN, Nicholas Ojehomon, an internal auditor at the American International School, Abuja, also admitted that there was no transfer bearing the name Yahaya Bello in the documents.

Justice Emeka Nwite had earlier rejected the EFCC’s objection to the admissibility of a judgment of the Federal Capital Territory High Court in suit number FCT/HC/CV/2574/2023 between Mr Ali Bello and Incorporated Trustees of American International School.

The Judge had, at the last hearing, adjourned for ruling on the admissibility of the judgment, which had decided the issue of payment of fees or refund in the ongoing case in favour of the defendant.

While delivering his ruling, he said the objection of the prosecution was preemptive, adding that the court had since moved away from the platform of technicalities to the platform of substantial justice.

The judge recalled that the EFCC lawyer, Kemi Pinheiro, SAN, had, at the last hearing, on March 7, 2025, objected to the admissibility of the documents, saying the trial was a criminal trial and the defendant could not tender documents when the prosecution had not closed its case.

He therefore urged the court to reject the document.

Counsel to the defendant, Joseph Daudu, SAN, had, however, argued that the admissibility of the document was exclusively by the principle of relevance.

In his ruling on Thursday, Justice Nwite said the issue of tendering documents was governed by the law, looking at: “whether the facts are pleaded, whether the documents are relevant, whether the documents are admissible.”

He added, “Admissibility of documents is strictly guided by law as far as it satisfies the provisions of Sections 102 and 104 of the Evidence Act.

“The question is: at what point can the defendant tender documents?”

Justice Nwite said the court was inclined to agree with the counsel to the defendant, noting that the court was already on the platform of substantial justice.

“Consequently, the argument that the defence cannot present the document is hereby discountenanced,” the judge declared.

“Having said that, the objection of the prosecution is indeed preemptive. Consequently, the objection of the learned counsel to the prosecution is hereby overruled.

“The document sought to be tendered is hereby marked as Exhibit 19,” Nwite said.

The witness, who is the 3rd Prosecution witness, while being cross-examined, said he had worked with the American International School for eight years and was employed as an internal auditor.

When he was given Exhibit 19 (the FCT Court judgment), and asked to read out parts of the judgment, the prosecution counsel, Olukayode Enitan, SAN, objected.

“The witness has already been shown the exhibit admitted as evidence. Anything that needs to be done with the judgment is not within his opinion. That is for those of us here because the witness is not a legal expert. Let us save time by not asking the witness this,” he said.

“I am not asking for the witness’s opinion. I am speaking to the document just the same way they did,” Daudu SAN responded.

The EFCC lawyer said the difference between the document and the ones they tendered “is that those documents are not judgments of the court.”

“But it has been tendered and admitted by the court. I should be allowed to conduct my case the way I like. My lord, what I am saying is that I should be allowed to conduct my case because it may be devastating to my case if I am not allowed to,” the Defendant’s Counsel stated. The judge agreed.

The witness, therefore, read out the part of the judgment that said there was no court order for the school to return the money to EFCC or any judgment declaring the money as proceeds of money laundering.

The judgment also said AISA ought not to have paid the money to EFCC, that AISA cannot pay the EFCC or any other person monies paid under the future fee agreement without an order of the Court.

In addition, the Judgment held that AISA had a binding contract with the Bello family on future fee payments of school fees of children in the school, and they cannot derogate therefrom.

The witness also admitted that the name of Yahaya Bello was not on the letter for the payment of the $760,910 to American International School.

On the source of the payment of school fees to the school, the EFCC witness admitted that there was no wire transfer from the Kogi State Government or any of the local Governments in the state.

“If you check the entire statement, is there any wired transfer coming from the Kogi State government? Any column?” The Defendant’s lawyer asked.

“No, there is no such name,” the witness responded.

“What of any local government,” the Defendant’s lawyer asked.

Again, the witness said, “No.”

Justice Nwite, after this, adjourned the case to tomorrow, May 9, 2025, for continuation of trial.

Racoon:
So EFCC witness is now rubbishing their own charge against Yahaya Bello?

keeper303:
Do you want him to lie that money was transferred from Kogi govt or local govt accounts to the school?

adioolayi:
“If you check the entire statement, is there any wired transfer coming from the Kogi State government? Any column?” The Defendant’s lawyer asked.

“No, there is no such name,” the witness responded.

“What of any local government,” the Defendant’s lawyer asked.

Again, the witness said, “No.”



Na here EFCC go lose this case... Nigeria's politicians are very smart thieves

TyroneP:
What if someone had received the money in favour of Yaya and paid to the school? They should establish a nexus between the sender of the money and the governor. It doesn't have to be his name or business... Maybe a friend or business associates.

It may be a RICO (Racketeer Influenced and Corruption Organization) thing.

For the school to make a refund means the money was actually received by the school.

These guys (investigators) didn't do their background check very well. They should follow the money trail and if the banks are not cooperating, they should charge them too.