Justice Emeka Nwite of the Federal High Court, Maitama, Abuja, on Tuesday, March 9, 2026, adjourned to rule on the admissibility of a Deed of Assignment and an Irrevocable Power of Attorney tendered by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) in the ongoing trial of former Kogi State Governor, Yahaya Adoza Bello.
The judge fixed the date after listening to extensive arguments from counsel over the admissibility of the two documents relating to the sale of Plot 1160, Cadastral Zone, Gwarimpa 2, Abuja, allegedly sold for ₦100 million.
Bello is being prosecuted by the EFCC on a 19-count charge bordering on alleged money laundering to the tune of ₦80,246,470,088.88.
The controversy arose when prosecution counsel, Chukwudi Enebeli, SAN, sought to tender the Deed of Assignment and the Irrevocable Power of Attorney through PW10, Mahmoud Abdulaziz, Chief Accountant of Dantata & Sawoe Construction Limited.
Abdulaziz testified that the company sold the property, measuring 8,240.72 square metres, to Azba Real Estate Limited for ₦100 million. According to him, the payment was made in tranches: ₦70 million on February 17, 2021; ₦10 million on February 19; and ₦20 million on February 22, 2021, via electronic transfers into the company’s Keystone Bank account.
He stated that Maigari Murtala made the transfers, while the Deed of Assignment was executed between Dantata & Sawoe and Azba Real Estate Limited and signed by Mubarak Dantata, Nasiru Dantata and Ali Bello. He further told the court that an Irrevocable Power of Attorney was executed between Mubarak Dantata and Ali Bello, and that the documents were submitted to the EFCC during the investigation.
However, defence counsel, J.B. Daudu, SAN, objected to their admissibility on three grounds.
“My lord, the first document is an irrevocable power of attorney and the second is a deed of assignment in respect of the same land. These are registrable instruments relating to title and ought to have been registered,” he said.
He submitted that only Certified True Copies (CTCs) from the appropriate land registry would be admissible, contending that the EFCC was not the custodian of land documents and that the purported certification by an EFCC official was contrary to Section 114 of the Evidence Act.
“On these three grounds, my lord, these documents are inadmissible,” Daudu maintained.
Responding, Kemi Pinheiro, SAN, described the objection as a misconception of the law.
“The evidence of the witness is unambiguous. He has led oral evidence of the transaction and receipt of money. These documents are being tendered to anchor that oral evidence,” he said.
He stressed that the case was a criminal prosecution for money laundering and not a civil dispute over land title.
“This is about financial crimes and the flow of funds. We are not tendering these documents to prove title or ownership. This court does not have jurisdiction to determine title to land,” he argued.
Pinheiro further submitted that a document inadmissible for one purpose may be admissible for another, and that once a private document is submitted to a public officer during an investigation, it becomes a public document in custody and may be certified.
Citing Audu v. FRN (2025) 5 NWLR (Pt. 1984) 61, he contended that the Supreme Court had settled the issue.
In reply, Daudu insisted that no specific purpose had been clearly stated for tendering the documents other than to juxtapose the names of the payer and the signatory.
“Even if it is to be admitted as a receipt, there must be a consideration clause; otherwise, it is inadmissible,” he argued.
Pinheiro countered that the Deed of Assignment contained a consideration clause and urged the court to admit both documents.
After hearing both sides, Justice Nwite adjourned until March 9, 2026, for a ruling on their admissibility and continuation of the trial.
Earlier in the proceedings, the defence informed the court of a pending application seeking leave to vacate an earlier order granting the defendant permission to travel for lesser Hajj.
Daudu told the court that both parties had filed applications and were engaged in discussions, requesting time to report on the outcome.
“We have advanced in discussions. If my lord can grant us until March 9 just to report on whether this application would be necessary,” he said.
Pinheiro confirmed that discussions had taken place and that the prosecution would respond to issues relating to a Red Notice.
“My lord, I confirm we had discussions. Monday is convenient. We will respond to the application on the Red Notice,” he said, adding that “all the airports in the Middle East are closed.”
Under cross-examination of PW8, an FCMB official, the witness confirmed that Exhibit 37 was the statement of account of Kunfayakun Global Limited from January 1, 2018, to December 31, 2024.
He told the court he was neither the account officer nor the relationship manager and had no direct relationship with the account signatories.
He confirmed a ₦100 million inflow on December 15 from Keyless Nature Limited but said he could not determine the purpose of the transfer.
On a ₦400 million RTGS inflow on December 17, 2021, he explained that RTGS means Real Time Gross Settlement, but maintained he did not know the business relationship between the parties.
Similarly, he confirmed a ₦600 million inflow from Ejadams on February 18, 2022, but said he did not know the purpose of the transaction. He was subsequently discharged.
PW9, Oluwafemi Victoria, a compliance officer with Polaris Bank, testified under subpoena, which was admitted as Exhibit 38, while statements of account and a certificate of identification were admitted as Exhibits 39 and 40.
She confirmed multiple ₦10 million inflows into JIT Limited’s account on November 23 and 24, 2021, from Musa Nura, Yusuf Mubarak and Maishanu Global Industry, totalling ₦150 million.
On SSP Foods Limited’s account, she identified 10 credit entries on November 24, 2021, including ₦70 million from Inganchi Synergy and ₦70 million from Murtala Maigari, among others, amounting to ₦250 million.
Under cross-examination, she stated that she was neither the account officer nor the relationship manager and did not know the business relationships behind the transactions.
The matter continues on March 9, 2026.
