EFCC Witness Tells Court He Had No Transaction With Yahaya Bello

The prosecution witness (PW16) in the ongoing trial of former Kogi State Governor, Yahaya Bello, has told the court that he only knows the defendant as a public figure and has never had any financial dealings or personal transactions with him.

During cross-examination by counsel to the defendant, P.H.B. Daudu, SAN, the witness, Mr. Bappa Usman Isah, stated that his only transaction related to the purchase of a shop at Sherif Plaza was with Ali Bello. He denied ever meeting the former governor during the transaction and reiterated that he only knew Yahaya Bello as a public figure.

According to the witness:
Defence Counsel: “Do you know the first defendant here in the course of the transaction involving the purchase of the said shop at Sherif Plaza?”
Witness: “No. I only know the defendant as a public figure, and I have never had any transaction with him.”

Earlier, during examination-in-chief led by prosecution counsel, Chukwudi Enebeli, SAN, Mr. Isah testified that Sherif Plaza comprises 276 shops and that Ali Bello purchased only one unit.

Explaining how payment was made, the witness stated that the total purchase price of the shop was ₦66 million, paid through bank transfers. According to him, an initial payment of ₦40 million was made, while the balance of ₦26 million was paid subsequently.

Prosecution: “Can you tell the court about your interaction with Ali Bello?”
Witness: “Ali Bello came to our site and made enquiries about the shops while we were selling them. He indicated interest in purchasing one. We gave him a prospective purchaser’s form and informed him of the requirements he needed to meet. After meeting the requirements, we provided him with the company’s account details for payment of ₦66 million, which was the purchase price of the shop. After payment, we issued him an allocation letter, allocated a shop to him, and issued a receipt of payment.”

Earlier in the proceedings, the court delivered its ruling on applications seeking orders to stay and/or suspend the hearing, consideration, and determination of Charge No. CR/778/2024 between Yahaya Adoza Bello and the Federal Republic of Nigeria.

The application filed by Bello sought an order striking out the charge marked FCT/CR/778/2024: Federal Republic of Nigeria v. Yahaya Adoza Bello & 2 Ors, on the ground that the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory lacked territorial jurisdiction to hear the matter. He further argued that the proceedings constituted an abuse of court process because of the pendency of Charge No. FHC/ABJ/CR/98/2024 before the Federal High Court, Abuja.

Opposing the application, prosecution counsel, Kemi Pinheiro, SAN, argued that the application was misconceived and intended solely to delay the trial. He submitted that the offences charged were offences under the Penal Code and were therefore properly triable before the High Court of the FCT.

Pinheiro further argued that the properties allegedly acquired with the proceeds of the offences, which form the basis of the charge, are all located within Abuja, thereby conferring the court with the requisite territorial jurisdiction to entertain the matter.

Addressing the allegation of abuse of court process, the senior advocate maintained that the charge before the FCT High Court is distinct from the one pending before the Federal High Court. He explained that while the case before the FCT High Court principally concerns allegations of criminal breach of trust and conspiracy under the Penal Code, the Federal High Court matter relates to alleged violations of the Money Laundering (Prohibition) Act.

In a ruling delivered by Justice Maryanne Anenih, the court upheld the submissions of the prosecution and held that it possesses the necessary jurisdiction to entertain the charge.

The court further ruled that the proceedings before it do not amount to an abuse of court process and consequently dismissed the defendant’s application for lacking merit.

Justice Anenih also dismissed a similar application filed by the third defendant, describing it as equally unmeritorious.