A Federal Capital Territory High Court on Wednesday adjourned hearing in the alleged money laundering case against a former governor of Kogi State, Yahaya Bello until April 3 and April 24.
Justice Maryann Anenih adjourned the case for continuation of hearing after the first witness, Fabian Nworah, a property developer, was called to testify.
The Prosecution Counsel, Kemi Pinheiro, SAN, informed the court that he had five witnesses to call for the day.
Justice Anenih said she could only take one witness as she had other matters to attend to.
The court also announced that it would not be sitting on Thursday as previously scheduled.
Counsel for the 1st and 2nd Defendants, Joseph Daudu, SAN, however, informed the court that the prosecution had not made the statements on oath of the 2nd defendant available to the defence team.
He said he was aware that the first defendant had not made any statement.
Mr Daudu also objected to the witness presented by the prosecution, arguing that the defendants had no prior knowledge of the witness and were only seeing him in court for the first time.
Citing authorities, he emphasised that legal proceedings should not be a “hide and seek” game, stating that the prosecution was required to provide the witness’ statements on oath in advance so the defence could adequately prepare for cross-examination.
He stated, “The statements of the second defendant have not been served on us to be able to know if we will be able to represent him or not. So, it is a serious handicap on us. They need to serve us all the statements made by the defendants. I understand the first defendant has not made a statement. Fortunately, we are still within the house keeping stage of the proceeding.’’
Corroborating this, counsel for the 3rd Defendant, Abubakar Aliyu, SAN, said, “mine is not a comment but an observation my lord. My application is for the court to order the prosecution to provide us with the statements of the 2nd and 3rd defendants.”
When the judge asked if he had requested the statements, Mr Aliyu said that he discovered on Tuesday that the said statements were not part of the proof of evidence served on the defendants.
He said, “I am also applying that the court order the prosecution to provide us with copies of recovered digital device and the report or the extract therefrom mentioned on Page 14 of Volume 1 of the proof of evidence and the report of the forensic expert if any.
“I am following the procedure followed in Okoye against the commissioner of police, which was adopted by the Supreme Court in Okemini Vs Comm of Police.”
The prosecution witness, however, disagreed, saying the defendants were trying to delay speedy trial.
He insisted that the proof of evidence was served on the defendants on November 27, 2024.
“The constitutional provisions, which they rely on, do not imply that the prosecution should provide all the documents which it relies on. The law only provides that the prosecution should oblige the defence with all the documents requested,” Mr Pinheiro said.
He noted that the issues would be addressed whenever they receive formal applications from the defendants and urged the court to proceed on the business for the day.
“As it is, we have almost utilised more than an hour on these arguments,” he stated.
The judge asked the defendant’s counsel why he did not raise the issues in December.
Mr Daudu replied that it was because it had to be done after arraignment.
“I have applied and they are not obliging me. It is absolutely necessary for our defence,” counsel for the 3rd
defendant said.
The judge, however, declined the application for adjournment and directed the prosecution to proceed with the case.
The prosecution then proceeded to call its first witness, Fabian Nwora, a property developer with Efab Property Nigeria Limited.
Mr Nwora testified that he was invited by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission on February 8, 2023, regarding a transaction between Shehu Bello and EFAB Property concerning a property located at No. 1 Ikogosi Street, Maitama.
He stated that he sold the said property to Shehu Bello but observed that the name on the sale agreement was Dr Bello Ohiani, not Shehu Bello.
He said in 2023 Shehu Bello approached EFAB Property, informing them that the property was under investigation by the EFCC.
He returned documents related to the purchase and demanded a refund of the paid N550million.
Subsequently, he said, EFAB Property was invited by the EFCC to explain what transpired between them and Shehu Bello.
The EFCC instructed the company to refund the entire sum to an EFCC-designated account. EFAB Property complied in two batches of N400 million and N150 million.
(NAN)