A Federal Capital Territory (FCT) High Court sitting in Maitama, Abuja, on Tuesday admitted a previous court judgment into evidence in the ongoing trial of former Kogi State Governor, Yahaya Adoza Bello, over an alleged ₦110.4 billion fraud.
The trial judge, Justice Maryanne Anineh, admitted the Certified True Copy of the judgment in Suit No. FCT/ST/CB/6574/2023, alongside a payment receipt, tendered by the prosecution. The documents were marked as Exhibits AY and AY2, respectively.
Bello is being prosecuted by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) alongside Umar Shuaibu Oricha and Abdulsalami Hudu on a 16-count charge bordering on criminal breach of trust and money laundering.
At the resumed hearing, prosecution counsel, Kemi Pinheiro (SAN), informed the court that he was concluding the examination-in-chief of the 14th prosecution witness (PW14), Nicholas Okehone, an internal auditor at the American International School, Abuja.
Okehone, during his testimony, confirmed his awareness of a suit filed by Ali Bello against the American International School and the judgment delivered in the matter. He also identified Ali Bello as the claimant in the suit and father of a prospective student, Zayyan Ali Bello.
However, the witness clarified that Ali Bello was not the father of four other children referenced in the documents, stating that school records identified Yahaya Bello as their father.
According to the witness, arrangements were made for the payment of the children’s school fees up to graduation through an upfront payment structure. He disclosed that a total sum of $569,864.12 was paid into the school’s account domiciled in TD Bank, with receipts duly issued.
Under cross-examination by defence counsel, J.B. Daudu (SAN), the witness confirmed that the American International School is located in the Durumi District of Abuja and that he had served as the institution’s internal auditor for about eight to nine years. He also stated that his role did not involve direct interaction with students and that he did not represent the school in the suit whose judgment was tendered.
Following cross-examination and in the absence of re-examination, the court discharged the witness.
Meanwhile, the prosecution urged the court to suspend consideration of a pending application filed by the first defendant challenging the court’s jurisdiction, arguing that such objections should not stall criminal proceedings.
Pinheiro, relying on provisions of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act (ACJA), particularly Sections 111, 221, and 396(2) and (3), submitted that criminal trials should proceed without interruption from interlocutory applications.
He maintained that any jurisdictional objections raised after arraignment should be incorporated into final addresses and resolved at the judgment stage.
The defence, however, opposed the application, filing a counter-affidavit and citing the case of Shema vs FRN (2019) in support of its position that the application was valid.
Responding, the prosecution argued that the authority cited by the defence was inapplicable, insisting that it did not address the relevant provisions of the ACJA or reflect more recent judicial decisions.
After hearing submissions from both parties, Justice Anineh adjourned the matter till May 8, 2026, for ruling on the application and continuation of trial.
