The Federal High Court in Abuja has adjourned for ruling on a critical evidentiary dispute between the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission and former Kogi State Governor Yahaya Bello, as a prosecution witness testified that Bello’s name did not appear in any of the banking records tendered before the court.
Justice Emeka Nwite of the Federal High Court, Abuja, has fixed March 9, 2026, for ruling on the admissibility of documents sought to be tendered by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission in the ongoing trial of former Kogi State Governor Yahaya Bello on charges of money laundering involving N80.2 billion.
The judge adjourned proceedings on Tuesday after listening to arguments from the prosecution and defence counsel regarding whether property-related documents could be admitted in evidence. Bello is standing trial before Justice Nwite on a 19-count charge of money laundering and criminal breach of trust to the tune of N80,246,470,089.88.
The disputed documents are a title deed and an irrevocable power of attorney in respect of a property located in the Gwarinpa District of Abuja. According to court records, the property was allegedly sold by Dantata and Sawoe Construction Company to Azba Real Estate Limited for N100 million. The documents were endorsed by Mubarak Dantata on behalf of the construction firm and Ali Bello for Azba Real Estate Limited.
Controversy arose during Tuesday’s proceedings when EFCC counsel, Chukwudi Enebeli, a Senior Advocate of Nigeria, sought to tender the documents through the 10th prosecution witness, Mahmoud Abdulazeez, an official of Dantata and Sawoe Construction Company. Abdulazeez told the court that he had been employed by Dantata and Sawoe since 2016 and currently serves as the company’s Chief Accountant and Head of Accounts.
The witness confirmed that a Deed of Assignment was executed between the construction company and Azba Real Estate Limited concerning property located at Plot 1160, Cadastral Zone C03, Gwarinpa II District, Abuja. His testimony sought to establish the existence of the transaction and the documents underpinning it.
However, the move was immediately challenged by lead defence counsel, Joseph Daudu, also a Senior Advocate of Nigeria. Daudu argued forcefully that the documents were inadmissible in evidence on grounds that they had not been certified by the appropriate statutory authority.
Daudu submitted that the EFCC lacked the legal power to certify such instruments, insisting that only the Abuja Geographical Information Service possesses the statutory mandate to validly register and certify land documents in the Federal Capital Territory. He contended that the documents, being registrable instruments affecting title to land, ought to have been duly registered with AGIS to confer any probative value in legal proceedings.
“The documents being tendered are registrable instruments. They affect title to land. Under the law, only the Abuja Geographical Information Service can properly certify such documents. The EFCC does not have the power to certify instruments of this nature,” Daudu argued before the court.
He further pointed to what he described as a critical omission in the documents, noting that there was no clause reflecting the N100 million consideration allegedly paid for the property. Although the documents bore certification stamps from the EFCC, the defence maintained that such endorsement was legally insufficient and could not cure the fundamental defect of lacking proper registration from the designated land authority.
Following the objection, EFCC’s lead counsel, Kemi Pinheiro, a Senior Advocate of Nigeria, took over the argument and urged the court to admit the documents. Pinheiro contended that the instruments were not being tendered to establish title to land, which would require formal registration, but rather to support oral evidence already led regarding the transaction and the receipt of funds.
“We are not tendering these documents to prove ownership of land. We are tendering them to corroborate oral evidence already before this court concerning the transaction and the flow of funds. The purpose is limited to that, and for that purpose, registration with AGIS is not a precondition for admissibility,” Pinheiro submitted.
After listening to extensive arguments from both senior counsel, Justice Nwite adjourned until March 9, 2026, for ruling on the admissibility of the contested documents and for continuation of trial.
Earlier in Tuesday’s proceedings, the eighth prosecution witness, Gabriel Ochoche, a compliance officer with First City Monument Bank, gave testimony that appeared to weaken the prosecution’s case regarding direct links between the former governor and certain financial transactions.
Under cross-examination by defence counsel Daudu, Ochoche testified that he could not link Bello to any of the transactions reflected in the bank documents previously tendered as Exhibit 37. The witness admitted that Bello’s name did not appear in the account opening package or the statement of account of Kumfayakum Global Limited covering the period from January 1, 2018, to December 31, 2024.
Daudu pressed the witness on this point: “In all the inflows and outflows drawn to your attention, did the name Yahaya Bello appear anywhere in Exhibit 37?”
Ochoche responded directly: “It did not appear in any of the transactions drawn to my attention.”
The witness further conceded that apart from the transactions specifically referenced in court, Bello’s name did not feature anywhere in the exhibit. He also told the court that he could not ascertain the purpose of an inflow of N100 million from Keyless Nature Limited on December 15, 2021, based solely on the face of the documents.
According to Ochoche, only the account holders themselves would know the reason for the payments, and he confirmed that he was not the account manager for the company’s account and therefore lacked personal knowledge of the transactions beyond what the documents showed.
When asked whether he knew the business relationship between Keyless Nature Limited and Kumfayakum Global Limited, the witness responded in the negative. He gave a similar answer concerning a Real Time Gross Settlement inflow from Access Bank allegedly initiated by Keyless Nature Limited.
Asked to identify the defendant in court, Ochoche stated that he knew Bello only as the former Governor of Kogi State, not through any personal or professional dealings.
The ninth prosecution witness, Oluwafemi Victoria, a compliance officer with Polaris Bank, also testified briefly regarding transactions conducted on accounts under investigation before the prosecution called Abdulazeez as its 10th witness. Details of her testimony were not extensively canvassed in court before the evidentiary dispute arose.
The charges against Bello stem from allegations that during his tenure as Kogi State Governor from 2016 to 2024, he allegedly conspired with others to divert state funds through a network of companies and associates. The EFCC had initially filed a 17-count charge against Bello in April 2024, but the charge was later amended to 19 counts, with the total alleged sum rising to N80.2 billion.
The amended charge includes allegations of criminal breach of trust and money laundering involving funds allegedly misappropriated from the Kogi State Government’s treasury. The prosecution alleges that Bello used proxy accounts, including those of Kumfayakum Global Limited, to receive and launder proceeds of unlawful activities.
Bello was first declared wanted by the EFCC in April 2024 after he failed to honour invitations for questioning. He was later arrested in September 2024 and has remained in custody at the Kuje Correctional Centre pending the determination of his bail applications, which have been fiercely contested by the prosecution.
The case has been marked by procedural disputes since its inception. In December 2024, Bello filed a fundamental rights enforcement suit before the Federal High Court in Lokoja, seeking to stop his prosecution, but the matter was later transferred to Abuja. His repeated bail applications have been opposed by the EFCC on grounds that he is a flight risk and may interfere with witnesses if granted bail.
The admissibility ruling scheduled for March 9 carries significant implications for the strength of the prosecution’s case. Land documents and property transactions form a substantial part of the money laundering allegations, which typically involve tracing the proceeds of crime into tangible assets.
Legal practitioners following the case note that if Justice Nwite rules in favour of the defence and excludes the documents, the prosecution may struggle to establish the link between alleged illicit funds and the specific property transaction in Gwarinpa. Conversely, admission of the documents would allow the EFCC to build its narrative of how proceeds of alleged crime were converted into real estate.
The objection raised by Daudu touches on fundamental principles of evidence law in Nigeria, particularly the distinction between documents tendered to prove title and those tendered for other purposes such as corroboration of oral testimony. Section 89 of the Evidence Act, 2011, deals with the admissibility of documents that require registration, and courts have consistently held that unregistered instruments affecting land may be admitted for collateral purposes though not to prove ownership.
The EFCC’s position, as argued by Pinheiro, aligns with this distinction. However, the defence contends that even for collateral purposes, documents emanating from transactions affecting land must still bear proper certification from the statutory body empowered to certify them, not from an investigating agency.
Ochoche’s testimony that Bello’s name did not appear in any of the bank records of Kumfayakum Global Limited represents a significant evidentiary development. Money laundering prosecutions often rely on establishing links between accused persons and accounts through which illicit funds allegedly flowed. Where such direct links cannot be shown, prosecutors must rely on circumstantial evidence or the testimony of co-conspirators to connect the accused to the transactions.
The witness’s admission that only the account holders would know the purpose of specific transactions further complicates the prosecution’s case, particularly if those account holders are not called as witnesses or if their testimony is deemed unreliable. The EFCC has not indicated whether Ali Bello or other persons connected to the accounts will be called to testify.
Under cross-examination, the credibility and knowledge of prosecution witnesses are often tested to determine whether they can provide firsthand evidence linking the accused to alleged crimes. Compliance officers like Ochoche typically have access to bank records but may lack personal knowledge of the individuals behind transactions or the purposes of specific payments.
The trial before Justice Nwite has seen numerous adjournments since Bello’s arraignment. The former governor was initially scheduled for arraignment in April 2024 but failed to appear in court, leading the EFCC to declare him wanted. Following his arrest in September 2024, he was arraigned on October 24, 2024, and pleaded not guilty to all charges.
Since then, the prosecution has called several witnesses, including bankers, compliance officers, and investigators, seeking to establish its case through documentary evidence and testimonial proof. The defence has consistently challenged the admissibility of documents and the credibility of witnesses while maintaining Bello’s innocence.
The case has also witnessed changes in judicial assignment. The Chief Judge of the Federal High Court had originally assigned the matter to Justice Obiora Egwuatu, but the judge recused himself following allegations of bias raised by the prosecution. The case was subsequently reassigned to Justice Nwite, who has presided over the trial since late 2024.
The prosecution of Bello, who governed Kogi State for eight years under the All Progressives Congress platform, has attracted significant public attention, particularly given the large sum involved and the former governor’s political connections. Bello was a key ally of former Governor Yahaya Bello’s political godfather, former Governor Abubakar Audu, and later of former Governor Idris Wada before aligning with the APC.
His trial is one of several high-profile corruption cases involving former governors currently before Nigerian courts. The EFCC has in recent years intensified prosecution of former state executives, securing convictions against some while facing prolonged legal battles with others.
Civil society organisations have watched the trial closely, with some expressing concern about the pace of proceedings while others caution against prejudging the outcome. Anti-corruption advocates generally support thorough prosecution of alleged financial crimes but also emphasise the importance of fair trial guarantees and adherence to evidentiary rules.
The defence’s success in extracting admissions from prosecution witnesses that Bello’s name does not appear in key banking documents may strengthen arguments that the former governor is being unfairly targeted or that evidence against him is circumstantial at best. However, legal experts note that money laundering cases often rely on showing control over accounts rather than nominal ownership, and the prosecution may still seek to establish that Bello exercised such control even if his name does not appear on account documents.
With ruling on document admissibility fixed for March 9, the trial will then proceed with further prosecution witnesses if the documents are admitted, or may take a different direction if they are excluded. The EFCC has indicated it has additional witnesses to call, though the exact number and nature of their testimony remain undisclosed.
The defence has signalled its intention to challenge every piece of evidence sought to be tendered and to cross-examine prosecution witnesses thoroughly. Should the case proceed to the defence stage, Bello is expected to testify in his own defence and call witnesses to rebut the prosecution’s allegations.
Given the complexity of the case and the number of witnesses involved, legal observers anticipate that the trial may extend well into 2026 or beyond before judgment is delivered. Both the prosecution and defence have engaged teams of senior counsel, reflecting the high stakes involved for all parties.
