The Federal High Court in Abuja has postponed the hearing of the money laundering case against former Kogi State Governor Yahaya Bello to June 26, 27, and July 4 and 5, following a legal dispute over the prosecution’s attempt to cross-examine one of its own witnesses.
Justice Emeka Nwite adjourned the session after lengthy arguments between the defense and prosecution teams regarding the proper procedure for questioning the third witness, Nicholas Ojehomon, an internal auditor at the American International School in Abuja.
During cross-examination, the defense counsel, Chief Joseph Daudu, SAN, asked Ojehomon about his previous testimony in other courts related to school fees paid by the Bello family to the school. Ojehomon confirmed his involvement in similar cases but did not specify the courts. He also clarified that his prior testimony had not implicated the former governor in any wrongdoing, nor did his current testimony.
After the defense concluded its questioning, the EFCC’s lawyer, Olukayode Enitan, SAN, sought to cross-examine Ojehomon based on Exhibit 19, a document previously admitted into evidence. However, Daudu objected, arguing that the prosecution could not cross-examine its own witness without first declaring the witness hostile, as stipulated by the Evidence Act.
Daudu stressed that the prosecution’s request lacked legal foundation, insisting that cross-examination of one’s own witness is only permissible if the witness is declared hostile by the court.
Enitan, in response, argued that the prosecution had the right to refer to specific sections of the document under the principle of fair hearing as outlined in Section 36 of the Constitution. The judge, however, sought clarification on whether the prosecution’s approach was legally supported and emphasized the established procedure: the defense cross-examines the witness after the evidence-in-chief, followed by the prosecution’s re-examination.
Justice Nwite suggested that the parties address the legal issues at hand in a formal manner before proceeding, allowing Enitan to continue with a re-examination. However, when Enitan’s questioning began to resemble cross-examination, Daudu raised an objection, prompting the judge to insist that the matter be fully addressed before any further questioning.
Daudu maintained that the procedure being sought by the prosecution was irregular and not supported by the Evidence Act, particularly concerning the use of documents during re-examination without proper linkage to prior testimony.
Enitan disagreed, citing a Supreme Court ruling that allowed re-examination of a document introduced earlier in the trial. He argued that the defense should not be allowed to present documents and then prevent the prosecution from addressing them.
The judge adjourned the case for further discussion, setting new dates for a ruling and continuation of the trial in late June and early July.
During a previous hearing, the third prosecution witness testified that no school fees were transferred from the Kogi State Government or any of its local governments to the American International School, Abuja. He also referenced a previous judgment from the Federal Capital Territory High Court, which confirmed that there was no order requiring the return of the school fees to the EFCC, nor any ruling declaring the funds as proceeds of money laundering.
