05/05/2026
Alleged ₦110.4bn Kogi Fraud: Court Admits High Court Judgment as Evidence Against Yahaya Bello
Justice Maryanne Anineh of the Federal Capital Territory High Court, FCT High Court, Maitama, Abuja on Tuesday, May 5, 2026 admitted into evidence a judgment of the FCT High Court against the former Governor of Kogi State, Yahaya Adoza Bello.
The Economic and Financial Crimes Commission, EFCC is prosecuting Bello alongside Umar Shuaibu Oricha and Abdulsalami Hudu on an alleged 16-count charge bordering on criminal breach of trust and money laundering to the tune of ₦110.4 billion.
At the resumed hearing on Tuesday, prosecution counsel, Kemi Pinheiro, SAN, informed the court that he was concluding the examination-in-chief of the witness, PW14, Nicholas Okehone, an Internal auditor of the American International School, Abuja.
“My lord, on the last adjourned date, I was examining PW14 and I was about rounding up. The witness is here; I can finish so that we can take cross-examination,” he said.
He also urged the court to defer pending applications, including one challenging jurisdiction, in order to allow the trial to proceed without interruption.
During his testimony, Okehone confirmed his awareness of a suit filed by Ali Bello against the American International School and the judgment delivered in the matter. The prosecution subsequently sought to tender the Certified True Copy of the judgment in Suit No. FCT/ST/CB/6574/2023, as well as a payment receipt.
Counsel to the defendants, J.B. Daudu, SAN, and Z.E. Abbas, raised no objection to the admissibility of the documents.
Justice Anineh thereafter admitted them in evidence and marked them as Exhibits AY and AY2, respectively.
Led in evidence, the witness confirmed that Ali Bello was the claimant in the suit and identified as the father of a prospective student, Zayyan Ali Bello. He, however, clarified that Ali Bello was not the father of four other children referenced in the documents.
According to him, “from our record, Yahaya Adoza Bello is the father of the four children.”
Reading from the admitted judgment, the witness disclosed that arrangements were made for the payment of the children’s school fees up to graduation through an upfront payment plan.
He further stated that “the sum of $569,864.12 was paid into the account of the school domiciled in TD Bank,” adding that receipts were issued for the transactions and that the amount formed part of the total payment made.
Under cross-examination, defence counsel, Daudu, SAN, confirmed from the witness that the American International School is located in the Durumi District of Abuja and that the witness had served as an internal auditor of the school for about eight to nine years.
The witness also told the court that his role did not permit him to interface with students and confirmed that he did not represent the school in the suit which judgment was tendered in evidence.
Following cross-examination by both defence teams and in the absence of re-examination, the witness was discharged.
Thereafter, the prosecution moved an application dated October 7, 2025, seeking to stay or suspend the hearing of the first defendant’s motion challenging the jurisdiction of the court.
Arguing the application, Pinheiro relied on provisions of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act, ACJA, emphasizing the need for speedy and uninterrupted trial.
“My lord, essentially, this application seeks to suspend the hearing of the first defendant’s motion. I urge my lordship to deliver ruling and judgment on the trial,” he said.
Citing Sections 111, 221 and 396(2) and (3) of the ACJA, he argued that criminal trials should not be stalled by interlocutory objections.
“A community reading of these Sections makes it unambiguous that no criminal trial shall be interrupted by any form of objection,” he said.
He further maintained that any objection raised after a defendant has taken a plea should be incorporated into the final address for determination at judgment stage.
“Whatever issues you have, incorporate it into your final address so it forms part of the issues your lordship will deal with before judgment,” he said.
Pinheiro also argued that interlocutory injunctions have no place in criminal proceedings, noting that the trial, which commenced in 2014, had progressed substantially with several witnesses already called and documents tendered.
“It has become a judicial policy… that courts do not entertain interlocutory applications and injunctions because trials are interrupted,” he said, adding that the defendant, having taken his plea, could not turn around to challenge the jurisdiction of the court.
In opposition, defence counsel, Daudu, SAN, informed the court that the defence had filed a nine-paragraph counter-affidavit supported by a written address.
“With respect, we have referred to the only relevant authority on this issue, the case of Shema vs FRN (2019),” he said, arguing that the prosecution’s position was misconceived.
Responding, Pinheiro dismissed the applicability of the authority cited by the defence.
“Shema is irrelevant. It does not deal with Section 396 of the ACJA… and it predates the avalanche of decisions both at the Supreme Court and Court of Appeal that I have cited,” he argued.
After listening to the submissions of counsel, Justice Anineh adjourned the matter till May 8, 2026, for ruling and continuation of trial.
