How Subpoena Dispute Stalled Examination of Entry {Bank} Witness in ₦110.4bn Yahaya Bello’s Fraud Trial

Arguments over the examination of a subpoenaed prosecution witness within the trial of former Kogi State Governor, Yahaya Adoza Bello, on Tuesday, February 10, 2026, stalled proceedings earlier than Justice Maryanne Anineh of the Federal Excessive Courtroom, FCT, Abuja.

Bello is standing trial alongside Umar Shuaibu Oricha and Abdulsalami Hudu 16-count cost bordering on prison breach of belief and cash laundering to the tune of an alleged ₦110.4 billion.

On the resumed proceedings, lead prosecution counsel, Kemi Pinheiro, SAN, knowledgeable the courtroom that the matter was for continuation of trial and that Prosecution Witness Ten (PW10), Olomotane Egoro, a Compliance Officer with Entry {Bank}, who was beneath subpoena, was current in courtroom. Pinheiro subsequently sought to tender the applying for the issuance of the subpoena, which was admitted in proof and marked as Exhibit AE, there being no objection from defence counsel, P.B. Daudu, SAN, and Z.E. Abbas.

Nonetheless, when the prosecution moved to look at the witness, P.B. Daudu, SAN, and Z.E. Abbas objected, contending that the prosecution couldn’t study the witness on the premise of a mere utility for subpoena, insisting that the subpoena itself should be produced and tendered earlier than the witness might testify.

In response, Pinheiro argued that the subpoena fashioned a part of the courtroom’s report, having been issued pursuant to an order of courtroom, and that the courtroom was entitled to take a look at any course of contained in its data. He additional submitted that there was no statutory provision requiring the tendering of a subpoena earlier than a witness subpoenaed by the courtroom might give proof, noting that there have been a plethora of authorities supporting his place and describing the objection as “clearly untenable.”

Replying on factors of regulation, Daudu maintained that it was the constitutional proper of the defence to be absolutely carried alongside within the proceedings, stressing that the trial was a public one and never a secret trial, and that the defence was entitled to see and procure a replica of the subpoena.

Counsel to the third defendant, Abbas, additionally argued that the subpoena fashioned the premise of the witness’s look in courtroom and that the defence was entitled to look at it earlier than the trial might proceed, including that the authorities cited by the prosecution weren’t relevant to the circumstances of the case.

Pinheiro, in an extra response, described the objection as an try and delay the trial, an assertion Daudu refuted, stating that the defence was not in courtroom to frustrate proceedings.

In her ruling, Justice Anineh held that, having thought of the arguments of counsel, the subpoena might all the time be produced earlier than the courtroom.

She consequently adjourned the matter to February 11 and 12, and March 11 and 12, 2026, for continuation of trial.