By John Azu
A prosecution witness has narrated before a Federal High Court in Abuja how the nephew of former governor of Kogi State, Ali Bello paid cash in millions for the construction of his Maitama, Abuja property.
Former governor, Yahaya Bello is standing trial on a 19-count charge of alleged money laundering valued at N80.2 billion preferred against him by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) during his tenure from 2016 to 2024.
Testifying before the court in Abuja on Thursday, the 14th prosecution witness, Shehu Bello, said Ali Bello transferred in instalments like N9m, N8.5m and N5.8m in cash for the property located at Plot 1891 Dala Hills, Maitama, Abuja.
Led in evidence by the prosecution counsel, Olukayode Enitan (SAN), the witness explained that his involvement in the Maitama property began after Ali Bello approached him to recommend a construction company for the project and he recommended Metro Deck Construction Company Limited.
“Ali Bello made transfers to them and on some occasions he paid them in cash,” he said.
Asked in which currency the payments were made, the witness said the cash payments were made in naira.
According to him, Ali Bello had requested his assistance in sourcing a property in Wuse II for the purpose of developing shops and they got him a plot of land at Plot 1058, Cadastral Zone A08, Abuja, Durban Street and he purchased same for N640m from SFC Foods Ltd through bank transfer.
Further in his testimony, the witness confirmed making statements to the EFCC during investigation of the case and identified the documents shown to him in court as his statements.
Following the confirmation, Enitan sought to tender the witness’s extra-judicial statements in evidence.
However, defence counsel, Adebayo Adedeji, (SAN) objected to the admissibility of the documents, arguing that the prosecution could not tender the extra-judicial statement of its own witness as substantive evidence.
“The extra-judicial statement sought to be tendered this morning by the prosecution as though it constitutes substantive evidence in support of the prosecution’s case is a misconception of the law and inadmissible at this stage,” he argued.
Adedeji maintained that such statements could only be used by the defence for the purpose of impeaching the credibility of a witness.
Responding, Enitan described the defence’s objection as misconceived, insisting that the witness had acknowledged making the statements and that the documents were relevant to the case.
He further argued that by virtue of the provisions of the Evidence Act, once a document is relevant and the maker is called as a witness, the document becomes admissible, subject to the weight the court may attach to it.
After listening to arguments from both parties, Justice Emeka Nwite adjourned the matter till June 15 and 18 for ruling on the admissibility of the statements and continuation of trial.