‘Yahaya Bello not involved in Abuja property deals’ – EFCC witness tells court

Stay Connected

Follow Very Nigerian

Get the latest Nigerian news, trending stories and breaking updates directly on WhatsApp.

Join Our Channel →

The 17th prosecution witness in the alleged money laundering trial involving former Kogi State Governor, Yahaya Bello, told the court on Wednesday that Bello was not involved in any of the property transactions being examined in the case.

The witness, Shehu Bello Bala, made the statement while under cross-examination by counsel to the defendants, Paul Daudu (SAN).

Bala also told the court that the second defendant, Umar Shuaib Oricha, did not participate in any of the transactions linked to the properties under investigation.

According to the witness, the property purchases were handled by Dr. Farouk Bello, who acted as an agent during the transactions.

He maintained that neither Yahaya Bello nor Oricha played any direct role in the deals presented before the court.

On cross-examination, he, however, noted that he was aware that the title documents – Deed of Assignment and Power of Attorney – were returned to Efab Estate by Farouk Bello.

The witness had earlier said he was not in anyway related to Ali Bello and Farouk Bello, whom he had mentioned in his examination-in-chief.

He also confirmed that he was not from Kogi State, implying that he was not also related to the former governor.

The witness, a commodity trader, who said he was from Katsina State, noted that he met Ali Bello about 14 years ago.

“So you have known him long enough to know the kind of businesses he is into,” the Defendant’s Counsel said.

“I knew Ali Bello in the course of my business which is commodity trading. We have done quite a number of businesses like buying grains from the North .

“We buy ginger and other products from the North and sell it. This was around 2012 to 2013. I also know that he is into real estate,” the witness responded.

The Counsel to the 2nd and 3rd defendants, A.M. Aliyu, asked the witness if he knew the 3rd defendant, he said no, noting that he did not also partake in the transactions.

He told the court that at the time the title documents were returned to Efab Estate, Farouk Bello, who was his father’s friend, had passed on.

“Would I be correct to say that it was the children who said they wanted to collect the money on the property after the death of Dr Farouk Bello?” the Defendant’s Counsel asked.

“Someone came to me with documents concerning the property that they wanted to sell the property but I cannot confirm if he was Farouk Bello’s son,” the witness responded.

He confirmed that he took the documents back to the chairman of Efab Estate.

“That was when we realised that the property was being investigated,” he said.

He said the second property that was not marked by the EFCC was the one bought by Farouk.

“Will I be correct to say that Ali Bello inherited that property from his mother?” The Defendant’s Counsel asked.

The prosecution counsel, Olukayode Enitan, SAN, interjected that the evidence the witness gave was not about inheritance.

But the Defendant’s Counsel said he was entitled to lay foundation for his defence and that he could ask the witness within his capacity.