The High Court of the Federal Capital Territory (FCT), Abuja, presided over by Justice Maryann Anenih, has dismissed an application filed by former Kogi State Governor, Yahaya Adoza Bello, seeking to strike out the charge brought against him in Charge No. FCT/CR/778/2024: FRN v. Yahaya Adoza Bello & 2 Ors.
Bello, through his lead counsel, J.B. Daudu, SAN, and a team of senior advocates, urged the court to strike out the 16-count charge on the grounds that the court lacked territorial jurisdiction to entertain the matter.
He also argued that the charge constituted an abuse of court process due to the pendency of a related case, Charge No. FHC/ABJ/CR/98/2024, before the Federal High Court.
Opposing the application, counsel to the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC), Kemi Pinheiro, SAN, argued that the application was misconceived and designed to unnecessarily delay the proceedings.
Pinheiro contended that the offences contained in the charge were based on provisions of the Penal Code and were, therefore, properly triable before the High Court of the FCT.
He further argued that the properties allegedly acquired with the proceeds of the offences, which form the basis of the charge, are located in Abuja, thereby conferring territorial jurisdiction on the court.
On the allegation of abuse of court process, EFCC counsel submitted that the charges before the two courts relate to different offences.
According to him, the case before the FCT High Court concerns allegations of criminal breach of trust and conspiracy under the Penal Code, while the case before the Federal High Court relates to alleged money laundering offences under the Money Laundering Act.
He further argued that the parties involved in the two cases are not the same, noting that Bello is the sole defendant in the Federal High Court case, whereas he is being prosecuted alongside two co-defendants in the FCT High Court matter.
In a ruling delivered on June 16, 2026, Justice Anenih agreed with the submissions of the EFCC and held that the court possesses the requisite jurisdiction to entertain the charge and that the proceedings do not constitute an abuse of court process.
The court subsequently dismissed Bello’s application.
A similar application filed by the third defendant was also dismissed for lacking merit.
Following the ruling, the court directed that the trial should continue, with the prosecution proceeding to call its 16th witness (PW16), who was present in court and ready to testify.
