Yahaya Bello: Court sets April 24 to rule on EFCC’s request to resubmit exhibit as witness

Justice Emeka Nwite of the Federal High Court, on Thursday, adjourned the hearing, in the ongoing alleged money laundering trial of the immediate past governor of Kogi State, Yahaya Bello, to April 24, 2026, to decide whether or not the prosecution could tamper with the evidence of its witness by showing him her initial statement to the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC).

The former governor’s lawyer, Joseph Daudu, SAN, had opposed the move by the prosecution lawyer, Kemi Pinheiro SAN, to resubmit Exhibit 46, the twelfth prosecution witness statement to the EFCC.

Daudu SAN argued that to contradict his testimony, the prosecution must first seek permission from the Court to declare the witness hostile.

This followed evidence in court which appeared not to be in line with what the witness, Abdullahi Jamilu, had written in his opening statement.

The EFCC witness, owner of Kumfayakum Global Limited, had claimed that he converted some funds deposited into his account by one Abba Adaudu into US dollars and delivered them to the latter at various times, both at his office and that of the recipient, in Abuja.

He was asked if he remembered delivering the funds anywhere other than the offices of both parties, but he said he could only say he delivered the foreign currency at the office.

It was at that point that the prosecuting lawyer tried to show the witness his previous statement to the EFCC, but the accused’s lawyer objected.

«My Lord, I object: if the learned lawyer intends to contradict his testimony, he must first ask that he be declared a hostile witness.

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

The prosecuting lawyer said he was only showing the document to refresh the witness’s mind, pointing out that the transactions took place in 2022.

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

The defense lawyer, however, argued that the cases cited by the prosecution were not relevant to his objection.

“My submission is that my learned counsel is attempting to treat his witness as hostile by confronting him with previous statements already presented in evidence.

“This amounts to a contradiction without first seeking permission from 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 violating this provision,” said Daudu, SAN.

At that point, Judge Nwite adjourned the session to the following day, April 24, 2026, to rule on the matter and continue the trial.

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

He said the name: Abdullahi Jemilu or Jemilu Abdullahi may have been used as a narrative in the cash deposits, but he maintained that he had not made the deposits.

On some operations on 8 and 11 October 2021; and on March 17, 2022, said one Abba Adaudu was the depositor and the deposits were made at the Lokoja branch.

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

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

It identified the nature of the entries from Keyless Nature Limited – bank transfer of N100 million on 15 December 2021; and N400m on 17 December 2021.

The witness also told the court that Keyless Nature Limited is owned by ABBA Adaudu.

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

The court was adjourned to 24 April 2026 to decide whether the prosecution could tamper with the witness’s evidence by re-submitting Exhibit 36 ​​or not and for the trial to continue.