Bello vs EFCC: Court fixes May 8 for ruling on admissibility of Abuja court judgment

The Federal High Court in Abuja has scheduled May 8 for its ruling on the admissibility or otherwise of a judgment from the Federal Capital Territory, FCT High Court in suit number FCT/HC/CV/2574/2023, involving Ali Bello and the Incorporated Trustees of American International School, Abuja.
Joseph Daudu, SAN, counsel for former Kogi State Governor, Alhaji Yahaya Bello, who is facing trial for alleged money laundering, sought to tender the judgment on Friday before proceeding with the cross-examination of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission’s third witness, Nicholas Ohehomon, from the American International School, Abuja, AISA.
The judgment had ruled on the issue of payment of fees and refunds in the ongoing case instituted by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission, EFCC, against the former governor. Bello also sought to tender receipts of the recertification of the said judgment of the Abuja High Court.
However, the EFCC lead counsel, Kemi Pinheiro, SAN, who had earlier led the witness in evidence, strongly objected to the tendering of the document, arguing that the prosecution had not yet closed its case.
He contended that the defendant could not introduce documents at a stage when the prosecution was still proving its case. Citing Section 232 of the Evidence Act, Pinheiro stated that the only type of documents that could be tendered during cross-examination were previous written statements of a witness, for the purpose of contradicting or challenging their current testimony.
In response, Daudu argued, “My Lord, the admissibility of documents in criminal or civil cases is governed strictly and exclusively by the principles of relevance to the proceedings at hand.
“Once it is deemed relevant, it becomes automatically admissible. This is outlined in Sections 4, 5, and 6 of the Evidence Act, 2011.
“The question before your Lordship is whether this document is relevant and admissible in line with the provisions of the Evidence Act. The answer has been provided by my learned brother silk for the prosecution when he referred to the content of the judgment and read out a portion which states that a particular relief was refused and that the fee agreement was upheld in the same judgment.”
Daudu further asserted that the public documents he sought to tender involved American International School, Abuja as a party, and as far as the defendant was concerned, the witness was the sole representative of the school in the matter.
He insisted that the EFCC objection was speculative, stating, “He does not know what we intend to do with the record yet. Just because he [Pinheiro] is uncomfortable with the document does not preclude its admissibility.”
Pinheiro, however, urged the court to reject the judgment copy, arguing that the defence had not demonstrated that it fell within the ambit of Section 232 of the Evidence Act.
After listening to arguments from both sides, the trial judge, Justice Emeka Nwite, adjourned the case to May 8 and 9 for ruling on the admissibility of the document and for the continuation of the trial.
Earlier, when the trial resumed on Friday, Pinheiro asked the Court Registrar to hand Exhibit 13P1 to the witness, Nicholas Ohehomon.
The witness identified the exhibit as a telex from the bank sent to the school via email by Ali Bello.
He was also asked to identify Exhibits 13P2 to 13P4, which he confirmed were transfers made by Forza Oil and Gas in favour of the respective children. He further identified Exhibit 13P5 as a telex from Whales Oil and Gas to American International School, among other documents.
The witness told the court that Yahaya Bello’s name was not indicated as a sender in any of the fund transfers to AISA.
During the examination, EFCC’s counsel asked the witness to specify in whose names four of the payment receipts were issued. The witness responded that they were issued in the names of four children of the former governor, after being prompted by the prosecution counsel.
At this point, the defence counsel, Joseph Daudu, SAN, interjected, insisting that the witness should read the names on the receipt.
“My Lord, he [Pinheiro, SAN] is demonstrating this document. The witness cannot import or infer into the exhibit what is not there,” Daudu argued.
Meanwhile, the defence counsel could not proceed with his cross-examination as the judge had to adjourn for a ruling on the admissibility of the FCT High Court judgment regarding the payment of school fees.
The judgment in question was said to have addressed the allegations brought against Yahaya Bello by the anti-graft agency concerning the payment of his children’s school fees.
Specifically, the court ruling reportedly declared EFCC’s action regarding the mode of payment of the children’s school fees as illegal and unlawful, because the children have an unhindered fundamental right to education.
Bello vs EFCC: Court fixes May 8 for ruling on admissibility of Abuja court judgment