Yahaya Bello: Court Decides Whether EFCC Can Re-present Exhibit to Witness April 24
Alex Enumah in Abuja
A Federal High Court in Abuja, would on Friday ruled whether the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) can alter the evidence of its witness by showing the witness his initial statement to the Commission.
Justice Emeka Nwite on Thursday adjourned till the following day, to make his decision on the matter, at the alleged money laundering trial of the immediate past Governor of Kogi State, Yahaya Bello.
Bello’s lawyer, Joseph Daudu, SAN, had objected to the move by the EFCC counsel, Mr Kemi Pinheiro SAN, to re-present Exhibit 46, the 12th Prosecution Witness’ statement to the EFCC.
Daudu SAN argued that, to contradict its witness, the prosecution must first seek the leave of court to declare the witness hostile.
This followed an evidence in court that appeared not to have aligned with what the witness, Abdullahi Jamilu, had written in his initial statement.
Jamilu, owner of Kumfayakum Global Limited, had stated that he converted certain funds deposited in his account by one Abba Adaudu to United States dollars and handed it over to the latter at various times, either in his office or at the recipient’s office, in Abuja.
He was asked if he could recall delivering the funds at any other location other than the offices of both parties but he said he could only affirm delivering the foreign currency at the office.
It was at that point that the prosecution counsel sought to show the witness his earlier statement to the EFCC, but the defendant’s counsel objected.
“My Lord, I object. If learned counsel intends to contradict his witness, he must first apply to have him declared a hostile witness.
“The witness has clearly stated that the transactions took place only at his office and that of Abba Adaudu. Counsel cannot rely on this document to contradict or augment the witness’s oral evidence without following due procedure,” he argued.
The prosecution counsel said he was only showing the document to refresh the witness’ brain, noting that the transactions occured in 2022.
He referred the Court to Section 239(1), (2) and (3) of the Evidence Act (formerly Section 218), which permits a witness to refresh his memory, while also citing other authorities that supported his stand.
The Defence Counsel, however argued that the cases cited by the prosecution counsel were not relevant to his objection.
“My contention is that my learned counsel is attempting to treat his witness as hostile by confronting him with prior statements already tendered as exhibits.
“This amounts to contradiction without first seeking leave of Court to declare the witness hostile, contrary to Section 230 of the Evidence Act.
“I further rely on Ibe v. State (1997) LPELR-1389 (SC), which addresses the consequences of breaching this provision,” Daudu, SAN stated.
At that point, Justice Nwite adjourned sitting to the next day, April 24, 2026, for ruling on the matter and continuation of trial.
Earlier, during his examination-in-chief, the PW12 said he did not make any cash deposit at the Lokoja branch of Access Bank.
He said the name: Abdullahi Jemilu or Jemilu Abdullahi might have been used as narration in the cash deposits, but maintained that he did not make the deposits.
On certain transactions of October 8 and 11, 2021; and March 17, 2022, the witness stated that one Abba Adaudu was the depositor and the deposits were made at the Lokoja branch.
According to him, after receiving the funds from Abba Adaudu, he converted them to US dollars and handed them over to ABBA Adaudu.
