A prosecution witness on Monday told the Federal High Court in Abuja that fresh documents tendered in the ongoing money laundering trial involving former Kogi State governor, Yahaya Bello, do not contain his name or link him to the transactions in question.
The witness, Mahmoud Abdulazeez, an employee of Dantata and Sawoe Construction Company Limited, made the disclosure while being cross-examined by defence counsel, Joseph Daudu (SAN), before Justice Emeka Nwite of the Federal High Court in Abuja.
Abdulazeez, the 10th prosecution witness, had earlier identified two documents presented by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) during his evidence-in-chief. The documents include an irrevocable power of attorney between Dantata and Sawoe and Azar Real Estate Limited, as well as a deed of assignment between the two companies.
The defence had objected to the admissibility of the documents at the last hearing, prompting the court to reserve its ruling.
Delivering his decision on Monday, Justice Nwite admitted the documents into evidence and marked them as Exhibits 42 and 43.
While confirming the exhibits under questioning by EFCC counsel Chukwudi Enebeli (SAN), the witness acknowledged during cross-examination that Exhibit 43 did not state the value of the property referenced in the transaction.
Abdulazeez, who said he has worked as an accountant for more than 25 years, told the court he had not previously encountered a property transaction document that omitted the value of the asset being sold.
Responding to questions from the defence, he also stated that Bello neither participated in the transaction nor appeared at their office during the process.
According to him, Dantata and Sawoe granted consent and assigned Azbar to execute the deed, while the company’s directors signed on its behalf and Ali Bello signed for Azbar.
Earlier in his ruling, Justice Nwite addressed the defence’s objection to the documents, which centred on whether they met the requirements of Sections 108, 102 and 104 of the Evidence Act 2011.
The judge agreed with the defence that the documents qualified as public documents under Section 102 and must comply with Section 104. However, he also held that the prosecution’s intention was not to establish ownership of the property but to demonstrate that a transaction took place.
Following the ruling, the EFCC called its 11th witness, James Igbakuleh, a legal practitioner who testified about a property located at Plot 1058, Cadastral Zone A08, Wuse 2 District, Abuja.
Igbakuleh told the court that payment for the property was made in three instalments. He said he was contacted by one Shehu Bello after his client, SFC Foods Limited, engaged him to sell the property.
He added that shortly after the transaction was completed, he was invited by an EFCC official identified as Mohammed in connection with an investigation in which his name had reportedly appeared.
Under cross-examination, the witness said he was seeing Yahaya Bello for the first time in court and had never conducted any business with him.
The anti-graft agency also presented its 12th witness, Jemilu Abdullahi, a bureau de change operator, who testified about financial transactions involving several companies mentioned during the trial.
Abdullahi told the court that his dealings were mainly with Keyless Nature Limited and Ejadams Essence Limited. He also confirmed handling transactions in multiples of N10 million carried out by one Abba Adaudu.
Meanwhile, defence counsel Daudu informed the court that he had filed an application seeking the removal of a red alert issued before Bello’s appearance in court.
He argued that granting his client permission to travel abroad without lifting the alert was contradictory.
Responding, EFCC lead counsel Kemi Pinheiro (SAN) said the earlier order permitting the defendant to travel abroad for 10 days during Ramadan, beginning on March 13, was made in the defendant’s interest.
Justice Nwite said the court would examine the issues carefully before delivering a ruling after the parties adopt their processes.
The judge subsequently adjourned the case until April 22, 23 and 24, and May 6 and 7 for continuation of the trial.
