The 10th prosecution witness in the ongoing alleged money laundering case instituted by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission against a former governor of Kogi State, Yahaya Bello, has maintained that the former governor’s name is not linked to transactions before the court.
The witness, Mahmoud Abdulazeez, a staffer of Dantata and Sawoe Construction Company Limited, had, during his examination-in-chief, identified Exhibit 42 as the Irrevocable Power of Attorney between Dantata and Sawoe and Azab Real Estate Limited.
He also identified Exhibit 43 as a deed of assignment between Dantata and Azab Real Estate Limited.
This was after Justice Emeka Nwite admitted the two exhibits after a short ruling on the admissibility of the documents.
During his cross-examination by the Defendant’s Counsel, Joseph Daudu, SAN, the witness said the document, marked as Exhibit 43, did not state the value of the property in question.
Abdulazeez also noted that he had worked as an accountant for over 25 years.
READ ALSO: Appeal Court Dismisses Aiyedatiwa’s Challenge To Re-Election Eligibility
He admitted that, in his years of experience, he had not received documents that did not contain the value of the property being sold.
The witness also told the court that, during the perfection of the transaction, Bello was not a participant nor did he see him anywhere near their office.
Earlier, Justice Emeka Nwite had ruled that the documents sought to be tendered by the EFCC, which the defendant’s counsel objected to, were admissible.
The defendant’s counsel, Joseph Daudu, SAN, had raised an objection on the admissibility of two documents – an irrevocable power of attorney and a deed of assignment.
The judge said the central question was whether the documents sought to be tendered were admissible in accordance with Sections 108, 102, and 104 of the Evidence Act.
He said he agreed with the defendant’s counsel that the documents sought to be tendered were public documents in line with Section 102, which must satisfy Section 104 of the Evidence Act, 2011.
He, however, added that the prosecution had argued that the documents sought to be tendered were not for a civil case but a criminal trial.
The court also agreed with the prosecution that the purpose of tendering the documents was to establish the existence of a transaction and not to prove title to the land or property.
Other Witnesses
The prosecution counsel then called the 11th witness, James Igbakule, with regard to a property on Plot 1058, Cadastral Zone A08, Wuse 2 District, Abuja.
The witness, a legal practitioner, told the court that the payment for the said property was made in three tranches.
He added that it was one Shehu Bello that contacted him after his client, SFC Foods Limited, approached him to sell the property.
He said, shortly after the conclusion of transactions, he was invited by one Mohammed at the EFCC, who said the agency was investigating a matter and that his name had featured prominently.
During cross-examination, the 11th witness also said he was seeing former Governor Bello for the first time and that he never had any business with him.
Prosecution counsel, Kemi Pinheiro, SAN, also called a 12th prosecution witness, Jemilu Abdullahi, a Bureau De Change operator.
He confirmed that he knew some of the companies that had been mentioned in the course of the trial but said that his transactions were mainly with Keyless Nature Limited and Ejadams Essence Limited.
He also confirmed transactions, in multiples of ₦10 million, by one Abba Adaudu.
After a brief recess, the defendant’s counsel said he had filed an application for the red alert issued before the defendant’s appearance in court to be removed.
Daudu SAN argued that granting the relief to travel without taking away the red notice was like giving something with one hand and taking it from the other hand.
He said this after Pinheiro observed that their application to vacate the earlier order granting the defendant permission to travel abroad was for his own good.
Justice Emeka Nwite, however, said he would need to look at the issues critically before giving a ruling.
Leave a Reply