On Tuesday, the Federal High Court in Abuja set March 9, 2026, as the date for the court to rule on the admissibility of a document that the EFCC is attempting to exhibit in the ongoing prosecution of Yahaya Bello, the immediate former governor of Kogi State, for suspected money laundering.
Following hearing both sides’ arguments regarding the admissibility of a property-related document—which Yahaya Bello’s lawyer claimed was absent from the courtroom during the examination-in-chief of witness number ten, Mahmoud Abdulazeez—Justice Emeka Nwite set a date to rule.
These papers pertain to a piece of real estate in the Gwarinpa District of Abuja that was purportedly sold by Dantata and Sawoe Construction Company to Azba Real Estate Limited for N100 million. They include the title deed and an irrevocable power of attorney.
Supposedly, Mubarak Dantata, representing the building company, and one Ali Bello, representing Azba Real Estate Limited, endorsed the title deed and the irrevocable power of attorney.
A disagreement occurred when the main counsel for the former governor, Joseph Daudu, SAN, strongly objected to Chukwudi Enebeli, SAN, who was representing the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC), seeking to tender the two documents through Abdulazeez.
The lack of certification by the proper authority was one of Daudu’s main arguments against the admissibility of the documents.
Since they are documents pertaining to landed property, Daudu contended that they should be registered under land law prior to their admission for probate purposes.
Despite the EFCC’s certification on both documents, Daudu insisted that the agency did not have the authority to do so, stating that the registration and certification of such documents should only be done by the Abuja Geographical Information Service, AGIS.
After a heated exchange, EFCC lead counsel Kemi Pinheiro replaced Enebeli and pleaded with the court to accept the documents that would prove the deals between Azba Real Estate limited, Dantata, and Sawoe.
Following the conclusion of the hearing, Justice Nwite scheduled the announcement of his verdict for March 9.
While being cross-examined by Daudu, the defendant’s counsel, the eighth prosecution witness Gabriel Ochoche had earlier stated that he could not associate the former governor’s name with any of the transactions that were being considered in court.
The witness further confirmed that he was not personally acquainted with the individuals listed as signatories to the exhibit account belonging to one Kumfayakum Global Limited.
This followed instructions for him to verify that Yahaya Bello’s name appeared in all of the company’s financial records, including the account opening package and statement of accounts, for the period beginning January 1, 2018, and ending December 31, 2024.
The purpose of a specific input of N100 million from Keyless Nature Limited on December 15, 2021 was unclear to Ochoche, a compliance officer at FCMB, at first glance.
The prosecution witness testified that he was not the account manager for the company’s account, despite having worked with FCMB for four years and having seven years of experience in the banking field.
Keyless Nature Limited and Kumfayakum Global Limited are business partners, the defendant’s lawyer asked.
“No, I am not,” the eyewitness said.
The witness confirmed that, according Keyless Nature Limited’s directive, Access Bank received a Real Time Gross Settlement inflow on December 17, 2021.
He did concede that the reason behind the transfer of monies would only be known by the account holders.
Following this, the question was posed to the witness as to who former Governor Yahaya Bello was. I implore you to observe the accused. Is he someone you’re familiar with?” the lawyer continued.
“Yes, I am familiar with him from his time as governor of Kogi State,” Ochoche said in defence.
The question Daudu posed was whether the name Yahaya Bello was mentioned in any of the inflows or outflows brought to his attention by the senior prosecution counsel in Exhibit 37.
“It was not included in any of the deals that came to my notice,” the eyewitness stated.
Aside from such transactions, he also acknowledged that Yahaya Bello’s name was completely absent from Exhibit 37.
Mahmoud Abdulazeez was called as the tenth witness by the prosecution after Oluwafemi Victoria, a Compliance Officer at Polaris Bank, had testified as the ninth witness regarding transactions that had taken place on the accounts that were the subject of the inquiry.
Abdulazeez began his cross-examination by telling the judge that he has worked for Dantata & Sawoe Construction Company since 2016 and is now the head of the accounts department and chief accountant.
During his testimony on a plot of land at Plot 1160, Cadastral Zone C03, Gwarinpa II District, Abuja, he confirmed that a Deed of Assignment was signed by Ali Bello, representing Azba Real Estate Limited, and Mubarak Dantata, representing Dantata & Sawoe Construction Company.
Afterwards, the prosecution attempted to establish a connection between the individuals named in the Deed of Assignment and Maigari Murtala, who was allegedly involved in the transactions involving the aforementioned property.
However, the defence attorney raised an objection, stating that the court should not consider any questions regarding the substance of the Deed of Assignment because it was not presented to the court.
According to him, the prosecution’s line of inquiry was based on a document that had not been presented as evidence yet.
Next, the prosecution wanted to show the witness some papers that had been sent to the EFCC for their investigation, but the defence lawyer raised an objection.
Civil and criminal processes could not consider the Deed of Assignment and the Irrevocable Power of Attorney since, according to him, they were registrable instruments pertaining to the title of land. However, he failed to prove that they had been registered.
Legal representation for the prosecution countered by stating that the witness had already testified orally about the transaction and the receipt of funds, and that the documents were being introduced only to support that testimony, not to establish land ownership.
Daudu, the defence attorney, said that the papers couldn’t be used because they didn’t contain a consideration clause that proved the deal.
After that, Justice Nwite postponed the next sitting until March 9, 2026, so that he could decide whether the papers were admissible and whether the trial should continue.