There was pressure on the Federal Excessive Courtroom in Abuja on Thursday as attorneys representing the {Economic} and {Financial} Crimes Fee (EFCC) and former Kogi State Governor, Yahaya Bello, disagreed sharply over the dealing with of a witness assertion.
The dispute pressured the courtroom to step in and repair April 24, 2026, for a ruling on the matter.
Justice Emeka Nwite adjourned proceedings after listening to arguments from either side on whether or not the EFCC may current a earlier assertion made by its witness throughout trial. The difficulty arose through the ongoing cash laundering case involving the previous governor.
The disagreement began when EFCC counsel, Mr. Kemi Pinheiro, SAN, tried to reintroduce Exhibit 46, which is the sooner assertion made by the twelfth prosecution witness, Abdullahi Jamilu. The transfer was instantly challenged by Yahaya Bello’s lead counsel, Joseph Daudu, SAN.
Daudu strongly opposed the request. He argued that the prosecution couldn’t confront its personal witness with a previous assertion except the courtroom first declared the witness hostile. In accordance with him, the right authorized process have to be adopted earlier than such a step is taken.
“My Lord, I object. If realized counsel intends to contradict his witness, he should first apply to have him declared a hostile witness.
“The witness has clearly said that the transactions came about solely at his workplace and that of Abba Adaudu. Counsel can’t depend on this doc to contradict or increase the witness’s oral proof with out following due process,” he argued.
The objection adopted a second in courtroom when the witness gave testimony that appeared to vary from what he had earlier informed the EFCC in his written assertion.
Throughout his testimony, Abdullahi Jamilu, who owns Kumfayakum World Restricted, defined that he obtained funds from one Abba Adaudu, transformed the cash into United States {dollars}, and handed it over to him. He mentioned these exchanges came about both in his workplace or at Adaudu’s workplace in Abuja.
Nonetheless, when requested if he ever delivered the funds at some other location, the witness insisted he may solely affirm transactions carried out within the places of work talked about. This response appeared to battle with particulars in his earlier assertion.
At that time, the prosecution sought to attract his consideration to the earlier assertion to refresh his reminiscence. However the defence objected, insisting that such a transfer amounted to contradicting the witness with out following due authorized steps.
Responding, Pinheiro maintained that he was not making an attempt to discredit the witness however solely to help him in recalling occasions extra clearly. He informed the courtroom that the transactions in query occurred way back to 2022 and that the legislation permits a witness to refresh reminiscence utilizing prior statements.
He cited related provisions of the Proof Act to assist his place and argued that his strategy was throughout the legislation.
The defence, nevertheless, disagreed. Daudu insisted that the authorities cited by the prosecution didn’t apply on this state of affairs. He argued that the prosecution was not directly treating its personal witness as hostile with out in search of the courtroom’s permission.
“My rivalry is that my realized counsel is making an attempt to deal with his witness as hostile by confronting him with prior statements already tendered as reveals.
“This quantities to contradiction with out first in search of depart of Courtroom to declare the witness hostile, opposite to Part 230 of the Proof Act.
“I additional depend on Ibe v. State (1997) LPELR-1389 (SC), which addresses the results of breaching this provision,” Daudu, SAN said.
After listening to either side, Justice Nwite determined to droop additional arguments on the problem. He adjourned the case to April 24, 2026, when the courtroom will ship its ruling and proceed with the trial.
Earlier within the proceedings, the witness had made a number of disclosures throughout his examination-in-chief. He denied making any money deposits on the Lokoja department of Entry {Bank}, regardless of data displaying transactions linked to his identify.
He defined that whereas names like Abdullahi Jemilu or Jemilu Abdullahi appeared in deposit data, he didn’t personally perform these transactions.
In accordance with him, the deposits made on October 8 and 11, 2021, in addition to March 17, 2022, have been completed by Abba Adaudu on the Lokoja department. He maintained that after receiving the funds, he transformed them into {dollars} and handed the money again to Adaudu.
The witness was additionally questioned about transactions mirrored within the account assertion of Kumfayakum World Restricted. He confirmed receiving N100 million on December 15, 2021, and N400 million on December 17, 2021, from Keyless Nature Restricted.
He additional informed the courtroom that the corporate belongs to Abba Adaudu. He additionally confirmed one other influx into his account from Ejadams Essence Restricted on February 18, 2022.
With the authorized arguments unresolved, the courtroom will now decide whether or not the EFCC can depend on the sooner assertion of the witness as a part of its case.