Court fixes March 9 to decide on the admissibility of documents tendered by the EFCC...

Justice Emeka Nwite of the Federal High Court, Maitama, Abuja, on Tuesday adjourned proceedings to rule on the admissibility of a Deed of Assignment and an Irrevocable Power of Attorney tendered by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) in the ongoing trial of former Kogi State Governor, Yahaya Adoza Bello.

The judge fixed March 9, 2026, for ruling after hearing extensive arguments from counsel regarding the two documents linked to the sale of Plot 1160, Cadastral Zone, Gwarimpa 2, Abuja, allegedly sold for ₦100 million.

Bello is facing a 19-count charge bordering on alleged money laundering amounting to ₦80,246,470,088.88.

CBI News reports that the dispute arose when prosecution counsel, Chukwudi Enebeli, SAN, sought to tender the documents through PW10, Mahmoud Abdulaziz, Chief Accountant of Dantata & Sawoe Construction Limited.

Abdulaziz testified that the company sold the 8,240.72-square-metre property to Azba Real Estate Limited for ₦100 million, paid in tranches of ₦70 million on February 17, 2021; ₦10 million on February 19; and ₦20 million on February 22, 2021, via electronic transfers into the company’s Keystone Bank account.

He said Maigari Murtala made the transfers and that the Deed of Assignment was executed between Dantata & Sawoe and Azba Real Estate Limited, signed by Mubarak Dantata, Nasiru Dantata and Ali Bello.

He added that an Irrevocable Power of Attorney was executed between Mubarak Dantata and Ali Bello, and that both documents were submitted to the EFCC during investigations.

However, defence counsel, J.B. Daudu, SAN, objected to their admissibility.

“My lord, the first document is an irrevocable power of attorney and the second is a deed of assignment in respect of the same land. These are registrable instruments relating to title and ought to have been registered,” he argued.

Daudu maintained that only Certified True Copies from the appropriate land registry were admissible, contending that the EFCC was not the custodian of land documents and that certification by an EFCC official violated Section 114 of the Evidence Act.

“On these three grounds, my lord, these documents are inadmissible,” he insisted.

Responding, Kemi Pinheiro, SAN, described the objection as a misconception.

“The evidence of the witness is unambiguous. He has led oral evidence of the transaction and receipt of money. These documents are being tendered to anchor that oral evidence,” he said.

Pinheiro stressed that the matter was a criminal prosecution for money laundering, not a civil dispute over land title.

“This is about financial crimes and the flow of funds. We are not tendering these documents to prove title or ownership. This court does not have jurisdiction to determine title to land,” he argued.

He further submitted that a document inadmissible for one purpose could be admissible for another, adding that once a private document is submitted to a public officer during investigation, it becomes a public document in custody and may be certified.

Citing Audu v. FRN (2025) 5 NWLR (Pt. 1984) 61, he said the Supreme Court had settled the issue.

In reply, Daudu insisted no specific purpose had been clearly stated for tendering the documents beyond juxtaposing names of the payer and signatory.

“Even if it is to be admitted as receipt, there must be a consideration clause; otherwise, it is inadmissible,” he argued.

Pinheiro countered that the Deed of Assignment contained a consideration clause and urged the court to admit both documents.

Earlier, the defence informed the court of a pending application seeking leave to vacate an earlier order granting Bello permission to travel for lesser Hajj.

Daudu said both parties were in discussions and requested time to report back.

“We have advanced in discussions. If my lord can grant us till the 9th March just to report on whether this application would be necessary,” he said.

CBI News also reports that Pinheiro confirmed the discussions and said the prosecution would respond to issues relating to a Red Notice.

“My lord, I confirm we had discussions. Monday is convenient. We will respond to the application on the Red Notice,” he said, adding that “all the airports in the Middle East are closed.”

During cross-examination of PW8, an FCMB official, the witness confirmed that Exhibit 37 was the statement of account of Kunfayakun Global Limited from January 1, 2018, to December 31, 2024.

He said he was neither the account officer nor relationship manager and had no direct dealings with the signatories.

He confirmed a ₦100 million inflow on December 15 from Keyless Nature Limited but could not determine its purpose.

He also acknowledged a ₦400 million RTGS inflow on December 17, 2021, explaining that RTGS means Real Time Gross Settlement, but said he did not know the business relationship between the parties.

Similarly, he confirmed a ₦600 million inflow from Ejadams on February 18, 2022, without knowledge of the transaction’s purpose. He was subsequently discharged.

PW9, Oluwafemi Victoria, a compliance officer with Polaris Bank, testified under subpoena admitted as Exhibit 38, while statements of account and certificate of identification were admitted as Exhibits 39 and 40.

She confirmed multiple ₦10 million inflows into JIT Limited’s account on November 23 and 24, 2021, from Musa Nura, Yusuf Mubarak and

Maishanu Global Industry, totaling ₦150 million.

On SSP Foods Limited’s account, she identified 10 credit entries on November 24, 2021, including ₦70 million from Inganchi Synergy and ₦70 million from Murtala Maigari, amounting to ₦250 million.

Under cross-examination, she said she was neither the account officer nor relationship manager and had no knowledge of the business relationships behind the transactions.

The matter continues on March 9, 2026.