The 17th prosecution witness in the ongoing alleged money laundering trial involving former Kogi State Governor, Yahaya Bello, and two others, has told the court that the former governor was not involved in any of the property transactions under review.
The witness, Shehu Bala, made the assertion while being cross-examined by defence counsel, Paul Daudu, SAN, at the court session on Wednesday.
Bala also stated that the second defendant was not part of any of the transactions in question, noting that one Farouk Bello acted as an intermediary in the dealings.
He, however, acknowledged during cross-examination that he was aware that certain property documents, including deeds of assignment and powers of attorney, were returned to Efab Estate by Farouk Bello.
The witness had earlier told the court that he was not related to Ali Bello and Farouk Bello, individuals whose names have featured prominently in his testimony. He also confirmed that he is not from Kogi State, stating that he hails from Katsina State.
According to him, he met Ali Bello about 14 years ago through business activities involving commodity trading, particularly the purchase of grains from northern Nigeria.
He further told the court that Farouk Bello, whom he described as his father’s friend, was already deceased at the time the property documents were returned to Efab Estate.
During proceedings, defence counsel A. M. Aliyu, SAN, questioned the witness on whether it was correct that the children of the deceased Farouk Bello attempted to claim proceeds from the sale of a property after their father’s death. The witness responded that individuals approached him with documents expressing interest in selling the property, but he could not confirm their identities.
He added that he returned the documents to the chairman of Efab Estate.
The witness also testified that another property not marked by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) was acquired by Farouk Bello.
Tension briefly arose in court when defence counsel suggested that Ali Bello may have inherited the property from his mother. The prosecution counsel, Kemi Pinheiro, SAN, objected, arguing that such evidence was outside the witness’s testimony and scope.
However, the defence insisted that it was entitled to lay proper foundation for its case and continue questioning within procedural limits.
The matter was adjourned as cross-examination of the witness continued.
