Follow Us on Google
From Godwin Tsa, Abuja
The Abuja division of the Federal High Court has fixed March 9 for ruling on the admissibility of a document tendered by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) in the ongoing alleged money laundering trial of the immediate past governor of Kogi State, Yahaya Bello.
Justice Emeka Nwite fixed the date after listening to arguments by the prosecution and defence counsel on the admissibility or otherwise of the property-related documents.
The documents are the title deed and an irrevocable power of attorney in respect of a property in the Gwarinpa district of Abuja, allegedly sold by Dantata & Sawoe Construction Company to Azba Real Estate Limited for N100 million.
Counsel to Yahaya Bello had argued that the documents were not before the court during the examination-in-chief of the 10th prosecution witness, Mahmoud Abdulazeez.
The title deed and the irrevocable power of attorney were said to have been endorsed by Mubarak Dantata on behalf of the construction company and one Ali Bello on behalf of Azba Real Estate Limited.
Dispute arose when counsel to the EFCC, Chukwudi Enebeli, sought to tender the two documents through Abdulazeez and was vehemently opposed by Joseph Daudu, lead counsel to the former governor.
Among other objections, Daudu argued that the documents were not admissible, having not been certified by the appropriate authority.
He contended that the documents were of no evidential help because there was nowhere in them where the issue of N100 million consideration was mentioned.
Daudu further argued that, being documents on landed property, they ought to be registered under land law before they could have probative value and be admitted.
Although the two documents carried certification by the EFCC, Daudu maintained that the agency lacked the power to do so, adding that the Abuja Geographical Information Service (AGIS) is the only body vested with the power to register and certify such documents.
Following the heated argument that ensued, Kemi Pinheiro, the lead counsel to the EFCC, took over from Enebeli and urged the court to admit the documents for the purpose of establishing the transactions between Dantata & Sawoe and Azba Real Estate Limited.
After taking arguments, Justice Nwite fixed March 9 for his decision to be made known.
Earlier, the eighth prosecution witness, Gabriel Ochoche, while being cross-examined by the defendant’s counsel, Joseph Daudu, said he could not link the name of the former governor to any of the transactions before the court.
The witness also admitted that he did not have any direct interpersonal relationship with the signatories to the account of Kumfayakum Global Limited, which was presented as an exhibit.
This was after he was told to confirm the account-opening package and statement of account of the company, covering January 1, 2018, to December 31, 2024, and whether Yahaya Bello’s name featured in the entire documents or transactions.
Ochoche, a compliance officer with FCMB, admitted that from the face of the document, he could not tell what a particular inflow of N100 million from Keyless Nature Limited on December 15, 2021, was meant for.
The prosecution witness, who said he had worked with FCMB for four years, with seven years’ experience in the banking sector, also noted that he was not the account manager for the company’s account.
“Do you know the business relationship between Keyless Nature Limited and Kumfayakum Global Limited?” the defendant’s counsel asked.
“No, I do not,” the witness responded.
Other News
The witness said the same thing of a Real Time Gross Settlement inflow from Access Bank, on December 17, 2021, by the order of Keyless Nature Limited.
He admitted that it was only the account holders who would know why the funds were paid and received.
The witness was thereafter asked to identify former Governor Yahaya Bello.
“Please look at the defendant. Do you know him?” the counsel asked.
“Yes, I know him as the former governor of Kogi State,” Ochoche responded.
“In all the inflows and outflows drawn to your attention by learned senior counsel for the prosecution, did the name Yahaya Bello appear anywhere in Exhibit 37?” Daudu asked.
“It did not appear in any of the transactions drawn to my attention,” the witness said.
He also admitted that, apart from the said transactions, Yahaya Bello’s name did not appear anywhere at all in Exhibit 37.
After the ninth prosecution witness, Oluwafemi Victoria, a compliance officer with Polaris Bank, testified with respect to transactions conducted on the accounts under investigation, the prosecution called its 10th witness, Mahmoud Abdulazeez.
During the examination-in-chief of the witness, a staff member of Dantata & Sawoe Construction Company, he informed the court that he had been with the company since 2016 and currently serves as chief accountant and head of the accounts department.
When asked to give evidence on a property located at Plot 1160, Cadastral Zone C03, Gwarinpa II District, Abuja, he testified that a Deed of Assignment was executed between Mubarak Dantata on behalf of Dantata & Sawoe Construction Company and Ali Bello on behalf of Azba Real Estate Limited.
The prosecution then sought to link Maigari Murtala, who allegedly effected payments for the said property, with the parties to the Deed of Assignment.
Defence counsel, however, objected, arguing that the Deed of Assignment was not before the court and that any question relating to its contents would be improper in its absence.
He contended that the prosecution’s line of questioning revolved around an unseen document not yet tendered in evidence.
The prosecution then sought to tender certain documents which the witness stated had been submitted to the EFCC during investigation, but the defence counsel objected.
He argued that the documents, being the Deed of Assignment and the irrevocable Power of Attorney, were registrable instruments relating to title to land and, having not been shown to be registered, were inadmissible in both civil and criminal proceedings.
In response, prosecution counsel argued that the witness had already led oral evidence of the transaction and receipt of funds and that the documents were being tendered to anchor that oral testimony, not to prove title to land.
However, the defence counsel, Daudu, maintained that the documents lacked a consideration clause evidencing the transaction and were therefore inadmissible.
Justice Nwite thereafter adjourned sitting to March 9 for ruling on the admissibility of the documents and continuation of trial.
