Key Developments in the Money Laustrning Trial of Former Kogi State Governor
The ongoing trial of former Kogi State Governor, Yahaya Bello, for alleged money laundering has taken a significant turn as the Federal High Court in Abuja set 9 March 2026 to rule on the admissibility of key documents presented by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC). These documents include a title deed and an irrevocable power of attorney related to a property in Gwarinpa District of Abuja.
The Documents at Issue
The documents in question pertain to a property allegedly sold by Dantata and Sawoe Construction Company to Azba Real Estate Limited for N100 million. The title deed and irrevocable power of attorney were endorsed by Mubarak Dantata on behalf of the construction company and Ali Bello on behalf of Azba Real Estate Limited.
During the hearing, counsel for the EFCC, Chukwudi Enebeli, SAN, sought to tender these documents through the 10th prosecution witness, Mahmoud Abdulazeez. However, this move was met with strong opposition from Joseph Daudu, SAN, the lead counsel for the former governor.
Legal Disputes Over Admissibility
Daudu argued that the documents were not admissible because they had not been certified by the appropriate authority. He further claimed that the documents lacked any mention of the N100 million consideration, which is critical for their admissibility. Additionally, he emphasized that, as documents concerning landed property, they needed to be registered under land law before being admitted into evidence.
Although the documents carried certification from the EFCC, Daudu maintained that the agency does not have the authority to certify such documents. He pointed out that the Abuja Geographical Information Service (AGIS) is the only body authorized to register and certify such instruments.
Following the heated arguments, Kemi Pinheiro, lead counsel to the EFCC, took over from Enebeli and urged the court to admit the documents to establish the transactions between Dantata and Sawoe and Azba Real Estate Limited.
Testimonies from Prosecution Witnesses
Earlier, the eighth prosecution witness, Gabriel Ochoche, while being cross-examined by Daudu, stated that he could not link the name of the former governor to any of the transactions before the court. The witness also admitted that he did not have any direct interpersonal relationship with the signatories to the account of one Kumfayakum Global Limited, which was presented as an exhibit.
Ochoche, a compliance officer with FCMB, admitted that, from the face of the documents, he could not determine the purpose of a particular inflow of N100 million from Keyless Nature Limited on 15 December 2021. He also noted that he was not the account manager for the company’s account and did not know the business relationship between Keyless Nature Limited and Kumfayakum Global Limited.
The witness gave the same response regarding a Real Time Gross Settlement inflow from Access Bank on 17 December 2021 by order of Keyless Nature Limited and admitted that only the account holders would know why the funds were paid and received.
Examination of the 10th Witness
After the ninth prosecution witness, Oluwafemi Victoria, testified about transactions conducted on the accounts under investigation, the prosecution called its 10th witness, Mahmoud Abdulazeez. During his examination-in-chief, the witness, a staff of Dantata & Sawoe Construction Company, informed the court that he had been with the company since 2016 and currently serves as the Chief Accountant and Head of the Accounts Department.
When asked to give evidence on a property located at Plot 1160, Cadastral Zone C03, Gwarinpa II District, Abuja, he testified that a Deed of Assignment was executed between Mubarak Dantata on behalf of Dantata & Sawoe Construction Company and Ali Bello on behalf of Azba Real Estate Limited.
The prosecution then sought to link Maigari Murtala, who allegedly effected payments for the property, with the parties to the Deed of Assignment. The defense counsel, however, objected, arguing that the Deed of Assignment was not before the court and that any question relating to its contents would be improper in its absence.
Conclusion and Next Steps
The prosecution then sought to tender certain documents which the witness stated had been submitted to the EFCC during the investigation, but the defense counsel objected. He argued that the documents, being the Deed of Assignment and the Irrevocable Power of Attorney, were registrable instruments relating to the title of land and, having not been shown to be registered, were inadmissible in both civil and criminal proceedings.
In response, prosecution counsel argued that the witness had already provided oral evidence of the transaction and receipt of funds, and that the documents were being tendered to support that oral testimony, not to prove title to the land. However, the defense counsel, Daudu, SAN, maintained that the documents lacked a consideration clause evidencing the transaction and were therefore inadmissible.
Justice Nwite thereafter adjourned the trial to 9 March 2026 for ruling on the admissibility of the documents and the continuation of the trial.
