A Federal Capital Territory (FCT) high court has adjourned the trial of Yahaya Bello, former Kogi state governor, to July 8.
Bello is charged with alleged criminal breach of trust to the tune of N110,446,470,089, contrary to sections 96 and 311 of the Penal Code Law Cap.89, Laws of Northern Nigeria, 1963, and punishable under section 312 of the same law.
He is standing trial on a 16-count charge alongside two officials of the Kogi state government — Abdulsalami Hudu and Umar Oricha.
The defendants were alleged to have used funds from the Kogi state treasury to acquire properties in high-brow areas within the federal capital territory (FCT) and in Dubai, United Arab Emirates, according to the charge sheet seen by Chronicle. .
At the resumed hearing of the matter on Wednesday, Fabian Nwora, EFCC’s first witness, completed his evidence. Nwora is the chairman of EFAB Property, which handled the property that is the subject of the suit.
He told the court that he opened negotiations on the said property located at No. 1 Ikogosi Street, Maitama with one Shehu Bello but that the negotiations were concluded by Segun Adeleke, who is the EFCC’s second witness (PW2).
Led in evidence by Kemi Pinheiro, the prosecution counsel, Adeleke told the court that Nwora gave him the brief on the property in 2020.
He said the deal was concluded and N500 million was paid for the said property.
The second prosecution witness said Bello returned to their office with the agreement, to tell his chairman that he was no longer interested in the property as a result of the EFCC investigation.
Pinheiro asked about some documents issued to one Nuhu Muhammed in respect of a property in the Gwarinpa area. The witness confirmed that the documents were issued to Muhammed after he purchased one of the units of the detached bungalows belonging to EFAB Property Limited.
Joseph Daudu, counsel to the second defendant, objected to the admissibility of the documents on the grounds that there was a disconnect between the documents sought to be tendered and the foundation laid by the witness. The objection was, however, overruled.
Under cross-examination by Daudu, the witness said he had no dealings with the three defendants throughout the transactions on the property, nor did their names appear on any of the transaction documents.
