“Money Laundering: Bello’s Trial Adjourned To April” — Defense Protests Missing Statements As Property Developer Testifies

A Federal Capital Territory High Court on Wednesday adjourned hearing in the alleged money laundering case against former governor of Kogi, Yahaya Bello, until April 3 and April 24.

Justice Maryann Anenih adjourned the case for continuation of hearing after the first witness, Fabian Nworah, a property developer, was called to testify.

The prosecution counsel, Kemi Pinheiro, SAN, informed the court that he had five witnesses to call for the day.

Justice Anenih said she could only take one witness as she had other matters to attend to.

The court also announced that it would not be sitting on Thursday as previously scheduled.

Counsel for the 1st and 2nd Defendants, Joseph Daudu, SAN, however, informed the court that the prosecution had not made the statements on oath of the 2nd defendant available to the defence team.

He said he was aware that the first defendant had not made any statement.

Daudu also objected to the witness presented by the prosecution, arguing that the defendants had no prior knowledge of the witness and were only seeing him in court for the first time.

Citing authorities, he emphasised that legal proceedings should not be a “hide and seek” game, stating that the prosecution was required to provide the witness’ statements on oath in advance so the defence could adequately prepare for cross-examination.

“The statements of the second defendant have not been served on us to be able to know if we will be able to represent him or not.

“So, it is a serious handicap on us. They need to serve us all the statements made by the defendants.

“I understand the first defendant has not made a statement. Fortunately, we are still within the housekeeping stage of the proceeding,” he added.

Corroborating this, counsel for the 3rd Defendant, Abubakar Aliyu, SAN, said, “Mine is not a comment but an observation, my lord. My application is for the court to order the prosecution to provide us with the statements of the 2nd and 3rd defendants.”

When the judge asked if he had requested the statements, Aliyu SAN said he discovered on Tuesday that the said statements were not part of the proof of evidence served on the defendants.

He said, “I am also applying that the court order the prosecution to provide us with copies of the recovered digital device and the report or the extract therefrom mentioned on Page 14 of Volume 1 of the proof of evidence and the report of the forensic expert, if any.

“I am following the procedure followed in Okoye against the Commissioner of Police, which was adopted by the Supreme Court in Okemini Vs Comm of Police.”

The prosecution witness, however, disagreed, saying the defendants were trying to delay a speedy trial.

He insisted that the proof of evidence was served on the defendants on Nov. 27, 2024.

“The constitutional provisions, which they rely on, do not imply that the prosecution should provide all the documents that it relies on.

“The law only provides that the prosecution should oblige the defence with all the documents requested for,” Pinheiro argued.