0
0
N80.2BN FRAUD: WITNESS DETAILS CASH PAYMENTS IN YAYAYA BELLO TRIAL
A prosecution witness in the alleged N80.2bn money laundering trial of former Kogi State Governor, Yahaya Bello, on Thursday narrated before the Federal High Court in Abuja how Ali Bello allegedly made cash payments amounting to millions of naira for the construction of a Maitama property.
The witness, Shehu Bello, who testified as the 14th prosecution witness before Justice Emeka Nwite, said he was aware of cash payments of N9m, N8.5m, and N5.8m allegedly made in connection with the project located at Plot 1891, Dala Hills, Maitama, Abuja.
The Economic and Financial Crimes Commission is prosecuting Bello over alleged money laundering involving N80,246,470,088.88.
At the resumed hearing, the EFCC’s lead counsel, Kemi Pinheiro (SAN), informed the court that the matter was scheduled for continuation of examination-in-chief of the witness and thereafter allowed Olukayode Enitan (SAN) to lead him in evidence.
While testifying, Shehu Bello explained how he became involved in the Maitama property project.
“My friend, Ali Bello, approached me to ask if I knew any good construction company that could build a house for him.
“So I recommended a company, Metro Deck Construction Company Limited. I brought them, and he gave them the job to build the house for him,” he told the court.
Asked how payments were made to the construction company, the witness said both transfers and cash were used.
“Ali Bello made transfers to them, and on some occasions, he paid them in cash,” he said.
When questioned about the currency used for the cash transactions, the witness said the payments were made in naira.
“The ones that I am aware of: N9m, N8.5m and N5.8m. These are the only three cash payments I am aware of,” he added.
The witness also testified about another property located at Plot 1058, Cadastral Zone A08, Wuse II, Abuja, which he said was acquired after Ali Bello requested assistance in sourcing land for commercial development.
“My friend, Ali Bello, asked me if I could get him a property around Wuse II where he could build shops.
“After we spoke, I went out and got some people and spoke with some colleagues of mine.
“We got a plot of land in that location, Durban Street, Plot 1058, Cadastral Zone A08, Wuse II, Abuja,” he said.
According to the witness, the property was purchased from SFC Foods Limited for N650m through bank transfer.
“It was bought from SFC Foods Limited. The amount paid was N650m. The payment was made via bank transfer,” he stated.
The proceedings later shifted to legal arguments after the prosecution sought to tender the witness’s extra-judicial statements made to the EFCC.
When asked if he recalled making statements during investigation, the witness responded in the affirmative and identified the documents shown to him in court.
“Yes, it is my statement. It carries my signatures on all pages,” he said.
Following the confirmation, Enitan applied to tender the statements in evidence, but Bello’s counsel, Adebayo Adedeji (SAN), objected.
The defence lawyer argued that the prosecution could not tender the extra-judicial statement of its own witness as substantive evidence.
“My lord, we submit with respect that the statement sought to be tendered this morning by the prosecution, as though it constitutes substantive evidence in support of the prosecution’s case, is a misconception of the law and is inadmissible at this stage,” he argued.
Adedeji further submitted that such statements were only useful to the defence in challenging the credibility of a witness.
“We submit that the same extra-judicial statement, my lord, is for the use of the defence under Sections 223, 224, 225, 230, 232, 237 and 238 of the Evidence Act,” he said.
According to him, the Supreme Court had long settled the issue.
“My lord, this position was not made by me but by the Supreme Court in 1989,” he added.
He also maintained that the statement being tendered was not confessional and therefore could not be admitted against the defendant.
“So my lord, the situation is different from what your lordship ruled on earlier that the prosecution could refresh the memory of the witness,” he said.
Responding, Enitan described the objection as misconceived and accused the defence of misapplying the law and authorities cited.
“The witness has given his evidence on oath, he has owned the statement, and I urge your lordship to admit it,” he argued.
He further maintained that under the Evidence Act, a relevant document becomes admissible once the maker is called as a witness, while the court retains discretion on the weight to attach to it.
After hearing submissions from both parties, Justice Nwite adjourned the matter till June 15 for ruling on the admissibility of the statements and June 18 for continuation of trial.
The latest testimony came a day after another prosecution witness, Baba Bappa, an estate surveyor and facility manager, told the court under cross-examination that he never transacted any property business with the former governor and only knew him as a public figure.
About The Author
