By Comfort Olayinka
A crucial witness in the ongoing money laundering trial against former Kogi State Governor Yahaya Bello has revealed that his name is absent from key documents related to the case. Mrs. Abimbola Williams, a Compliance Officer with the United Bank for Africa (UBA), testified before a Federal High Court in Abuja that Bello’s name did not appear in any of the account opening packages for the Government House Bank account with UBA.
Under cross-examination by Joseph Daudu, SAN, the lead counsel to Yahaya Bello, Williams admitted that Bello’s name did not feature in virtually all transactions related to the bank account. She also confirmed that she was not the accounts officer of the Kogi Government House account and that the account is domiciled in Lokoja, Kogi State, not in Area 3, Abuja, where she works.
The witness further revealed that 10 withdrawals, each totaling N10 million, were made in favor of Abdulsalami Hudu on December 12, 2018. These withdrawals were done with cheques and presented across the counter. Williams’ testimony raises significant questions about the EFCC’s case against Bello.
In another development, Nicholas Ohehomon, a witness from the American International School, was presented by the prosecution. The exhibits tendered included the school’s statements of account, admission letters of the children of the defendant, and payment receipts. The witness confirmed the different classes the children were admitted into.
The prosecution also presented a letter from the EFCC to AIS, Abuja, through the Registrar, which was marked Exhibit 18. An account provided by the EFCC for a refund was also tendered. The court adjourned the trial to March 7 for further proceedings.
The EFCC’s case against Bello hinges on allegations of money laundering during his tenure as governor. However, the absence of Bello’s name from key documents may weaken the prosecution’s case.
As the trial continues, it remains to be seen how the prosecution will respond to the revelations made by Williams. The outcome of the case will have significant implications for Bello’s future and the EFCC’s efforts to combat corruption.
No, the name Yahaya Bello does not feature,” the witness responded.
The Defendant’s lawyer again asked, “Please look at Exhibit 2P1-3P62. Does the name ‘Yahaya Bello’ appear anywhere in the document?”
“My Lord, the name Yahaya Bello does not feature on the exhibits,” the witness answered.
Daudu SAN therefore closed his cross-examination.
The EFCC Counsel, moved to re-examine the witness. Daudu, SAN objected, but the judge allowed him after a brief argument.
Pinheiro SAN then asked the witness if she was familiar with the signature on the document.
She said she signed on behalf of one Edward Bananga.
But the Defendant’s Counsel again objected and moved to cross-examine the witness.
“My Lord, the witness initially disowned the signature, but under re-examination, the prosecution led her to admit it. Therefore, I have the right to challenge that admission and prove that her claim regarding the signature is incorrect,” he said.
“Cross examination is meant to prove the accuracy or veracity of the witness. I am entitled to disprove what she said. This is in the interest of justice,” Daudu SAN added.
He then asked the witness to read the document.
Reading from the document, she said, “I Edward Bananga hereby certified and confirmed that……”
‘I put it to you that You are not Edward Bananga,” the Defendant’s Counsel said.
“I am not Edward Bananga my lord,” the witness answered.
Another witness, Nicholas Ohehomon, from the American International School, was presented by the prosecution.
The exhibits tendered included the school’s statements of account, admission letters of the children of the defendant and payment receipts. The witness confirmed the different classes the children were admitted into.
Exhibit 12P was also tendered, which was a contractual agreement for post-paid school fees for the children.
The Prosecution presented a letter from the EFCC to AIS, Abuja, through the Registrar. It was marked Exhibit 18 and an account provided by the EFCC for a refund.
The court, thereafter, adjourned to 7th March for continuation of trial.
