A Federal High Court in Abuja on Thursday dismissed the objection of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) on the admissibility of another Abuja Federal High Court judgment.
The judgment pertains to suit no. FCT/HC/CV/2574/2023, a case between Ali Bello, Kogi State Chief of Staff, and the Incorporated Trustees of American International School.
Justice Emeka Nwite, in his ruling, declared that the objection of the prosecution was preemptive, stating that the court had since moved away from “the platform of technicalities to the platform of substantial justice.”
Persecondnews recalls that at the previous sitting on March 7, 2025, Justice Nwite had adjourned for ruling on the admissibility of the judgment document tendered by the defence team led by Mr. Joseph Daudu( SAN).
The judgment document contains the FCT High Court’s ruling on the matter of fee payments and refunds.
While the EFCC argued that former Kogi State Governor Yahaya Bello laundered state funds to pay his children’s tuition at American International School Abuja, the defence countered by requesting the court to admit a prior FCT High Court judgment on a similar issue, which favoured the defendant.
Bello is facing a 19-count money laundering charge totaling N80.2 billion, brought by the EFCC.
The EFCC vehemently opposed the judgment’s admissibility, leading to sharp disagreements between both sides.
During Thursday’s ruling on the admissibility of the judgment document, Justice Nwite noted that the EFCC lead prosecutor, Mr. Kemi Pinheiro (SAN), had objected, arguing that the trial was still ongoing and the defence could not introduce documents before the prosecution closed its case.
The defence lawyer countered that the document’s admissibility should be determined solely based on its relevance.
Nwite ruled: “Before this court is a 19-count charge against the defendant bordering on money laundering. The said money from money laundering was used in paying tuition fees at the American International University.
“The document sought to be tendered is a judgment of the Federal Capital Territory High Court bordering on the money said to be laundered by the defendant and used in paying tuition at the American International University.”
He held that the tendering of documents is a matter governed by law, observing “whether the facts are pleaded, whether the documents are relevant, and whether the documents are admissible.
“Admissibility of documents is strictly guided by law as far as it satisfies the provisions of Sections 102 and 104 of the Evidence Act. The question is, at what point can the defendant tender documents.”
The judge added that the court inclined towards agreeing with the defendant’s counsel, emphasizing its focus on substantial justice
“Consequently, the argument that the defence cannot present the document is hereby discountenanced,” the judge declared.
“Having said that, the objection of the prosecution is indeed preemptive. Consequently, the objection of the learnt counsel to the prosecution is hereby overruled.
“The document sought to be tendered is hereby marked as Exhibit 19,” Nwite said.
Following the ruling, Nicholas Ojehomon, an internal auditor at American International School Abuja and third prosecution witness, resumed his testimony.
Ojehomon testified that he has been with American International School for eight years, serving as their internal auditor.
Under cross-examination by Daudu, the witness told the court that the letter for the $760,910 payment to American International School did not mention Yahaya Bello’s name.
He added that there was no wired transfer of fees from the Kogi State Government or any of the local governments in the state to the account of the American International School, Abuja.
Daudu asked the witness:“If you check the entire statement, is there any wired transfer coming from the Kogi State government? Any column?”.
Witness: “No, there is no such name.”
Daudu: “What of any local government?”
Witness: “No.”
The witness was handed Exhibit 19, the FCT court judgment, and was instructed to read certain sections, prompting an objection from prosecution counsel Olukayode Enitan (SAN).
Enitan said: “The witness has already been shown the exhibit admitted as evidence. Anything that needs to be done with the judgment is not within his opinion. That is for those of us here because the witness is not a legal expert. Let us save time by not asking the witness this.”
Daudu, in his response, said: “I am not asking for the witness’s opinion. I am speaking to the document just the same way they did”.
The EFCC argued that the difference between the document and the ones they tendered “is that those documents are not judgments of the court”.
Daudu added: “But it has been tendered and admitted by the court. I should be allowed to conduct my case the way I like. My lord, what I am saying is that I should be allowed to conduct my case because it may be devastating to my case if I am not allowed to.”
The witness, therefore, read out the part of the judgment that said there was no court order for the school to return the money to EFCC or any judgment declaring the money as proceeds of money laundering.
The judgment also said the school ought not to have paid the money to EFCC and that it cannot pay the EFCC or any other person monies paid under the future fee agreement without an order of the court.
In addition, the judgement held that the school had a binding contract with the Bello family on future fee payments of fees of children in the school, and they cannot derogate therefrom.
The court adjourned the case until May 9, for continuation of the trial.
Leave a comment