Justice Maryanne Anineh of the Federal Capital Territory (FCT) High Court, Maitama, Abuja, on Tuesday, May 5, 2026, admitted into evidence a prior judgment of the FCT High Court against former Kogi State Governor, Yahaya Adoza Bello.
The Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) is prosecuting Bello alongside Umar Shuaibu Oricha and Abdulsalami Hudu on a 16-count charge bordering on criminal breach of trust and money laundering involving the sum of ₦110.4 billion.
At the resumed hearing, prosecution counsel, Kemi Pinheiro, SAN, informed the court that he was concluding the examination-in-chief of Prosecution Witness 14 (PW14), Nicholas Okehone, an internal auditor at the American International School, Abuja.
“My lord, on the last adjourned date, I was examining PW14 and was about rounding up. The witness is present, and I can conclude so that we proceed to cross-examination,” he said.
Pinheiro also urged the court to defer all pending applications, including one challenging jurisdiction, to allow the trial to proceed without interruption.
During his testimony, Okehone confirmed his awareness of a suit filed by Ali Bello against the American International School, Abuja, and the judgment delivered in that matter. The prosecution then tendered a Certified True Copy of the judgment in Suit No. FCT/ST/CB/6574/2023, along with a payment receipt.
Counsel to the defendants, J.B. Daudu, SAN, and Z.E. Abbas, raised no objection to the admissibility of the documents. Justice Anineh subsequently admitted them in evidence, marking them as Exhibits AY and AY2, respectively.
While being led in evidence, the witness confirmed that Ali Bello was the claimant in the suit and was identified as the father of a prospective student, Zayyan Ali Bello. However, he clarified that Ali Bello was not the father of four other children referenced in the documents.
“From our records, Yahaya Adoza Bello is the father of the four children,” he stated.
Reading from the admitted judgment, the witness disclosed that arrangements were made for the payment of the children’s school fees up to graduation through an upfront payment plan.
He further stated that “the sum of $569,864.12 was paid into the school’s account domiciled in TD Bank,” adding that receipts were issued for the transactions and that the amount formed part of the total payment made.
Under cross-examination, defence counsel confirmed that the American International School is located in the Durumi District of Abuja and that the witness had served as an internal auditor for about eight to nine years.
The witness also told the court that his role did not involve direct interaction with students and confirmed that he did not represent the school in the suit from which the judgment was tendered.
Following cross-examination by both defence teams and in the absence of re-examination, the witness was discharged.
Thereafter, the prosecution moved an application dated October 7, 2025, seeking to stay or suspend the hearing of the first defendant’s motion challenging the court’s jurisdiction.
Arguing the application, Pinheiro relied on provisions of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act (ACJA), emphasizing the need for a speedy and uninterrupted trial.
“My lord, this application essentially seeks to suspend the hearing of the first defendant’s motion. I urge your lordship to deliver a ruling and proceed to judgment,” he said.
Citing Sections 111, 221, and 396(2) and (3) of the ACJA, he argued that criminal trials should not be stalled by interlocutory objections.
“A holistic reading of these sections makes it clear that no criminal trial shall be interrupted by any form of objection,” he stated.
He further maintained that any objection raised after a defendant has taken a plea should be incorporated into the final address for determination at the judgment stage.
“Whatever issues you have, incorporate them into your final address so they form part of the issues your lordship will determine before judgment,” he added.
Pinheiro also argued that interlocutory injunctions have no place in criminal proceedings, noting that the trial, which commenced in 2014, had progressed substantially with several witnesses already called and documents tendered.
“It has become judicial policy that courts do not entertain interlocutory applications and injunctions because they interrupt trials,” he said, adding that the defendant, having taken his plea, could not subsequently challenge the court’s jurisdiction.
In response, defence counsel Daudu informed the court that the defence had filed a nine-paragraph counter-affidavit supported by a written address.
“With respect, we have relied on the relevant authority on this issue, the case of Shema v. FRN (2019),” he said, arguing that the prosecution’s position was misconceived.
Reacting, Pinheiro dismissed the applicability of the cited authority.
“Shema is irrelevant. It does not address Section 396 of the ACJA and predates several decisions of the Supreme Court and Court of Appeal that I have cited,” he argued.
After hearing the submissions of counsel, Justice Anineh adjourned the matter to May 8, 2026, for ruling and continuation of trial.
