The Federal High Court in Abuja has fixed June 26 for ruling on a request by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) to cross-examine its witness—an internal auditor from the American International School—in its money laundering case against former Kogi State Governor Yahaya Bello.
Justice Emeka Nwite fixed the date after hearing arguments from both parties concerning the EFCC’s request to cross-examine Mr. Nicholas Ojehomon, an Internal Auditor with the American International School, Abuja (AISA).
Nairametrics had previously reported that the court allowed Bello to tender as evidence a judgment from the Federal Capital Territory (FCT) High Court, which his legal team said addresses issues surrounding his children’s school fees at the American International School (AIS).
Justice Nwite overruled the EFCC’s objection to the admissibility of the judgment as evidence in the N80 billion alleged money laundering case against Bello.
The former governor and others are accused of conspiring in February 2016 to convert N80,246,470,088.88, allegedly obtained through a criminal breach of trust, in violation of Section 18(a) and punishable under Section 15(3) of the Money Laundering (Prohibition) Act, 2011 (as amended).
Payments made to AIS, including related fees, are among the EFCC’s grounds for prosecuting Bello, alleging that the payments were proceeds of crime.
Bello has denied all charges.
Legal Disputes
Previously, the EFCC called Nicholas Ojehomon, a witness from AIS, to testify.
Through EFCC lawyer Kemi Pinheiro, SAN, the witness presented exhibits including the school’s statements of account, admission letters for Bello’s children, and payment receipts.
During the proceedings, Bello’s lawyer, Joseph Daudu, SAN, sought to tender a certified true copy of the FCT High Court judgment involving AIS to dispute the EFCC’s claim that the school fees were proceeds of crime.
The suit, FCT/HC/CV/2574/2023, between Mr. Ali Bello and the Incorporated Trustees of the American International School, reportedly addressed the school fees issue.
Pinheiro objected, insisting that the FCT High Court case was civil, while the EFCC’s case is criminal.
Justice Nwite ruled that the EFCC’s objection was premature, stating that the judgment was relevant to the case.
He overruled the objection and admitted the document into evidence.
What Transpired in Court
At the resumed court session on Friday, Bello’s lawyer, J. B. Daudu, SAN, concluded his cross-examination of Mr. Nicholas Ojehomon after asking specific questions regarding the FCT High Court judgment admitted into evidence as Exhibit 19.
- The witness also read aloud a portion of the FCT High Court judgment, which held that there was no order for AISA to return fees to the EFCC, nor any ruling declaring the money as proceeds of money laundering.
- In legal terms, a cross-examination is when the defense or opposing counsel questions a witness’s testimony through a series of queries.
- Justice Nwite then asked EFCC counsel, Olukayode Enitan, SAN, whether he intended to re-examine the witness.
- Re-examination in law means giving a witness an opportunity to clarify issues raised during cross-examination.
- Enitan responded that he intended to cross-examine Ojehomon based on Exhibit 19.
“I am not re-examining him; I am cross-examining him because they brought this document, my lord,” he said.
- Daudu disagreed, arguing that the prosecution’s position was not supported by the law as outlined in the Evidence Act.
- He contended that for the prosecution to cross-examine its own witness, the witness must first be declared “hostile.”
- A hostile witness in law is one who contradicts the party that presented them to the court.
“If you want to cross-examine your own witness, you have to first declare him a hostile witness.
“You cannot cross-examine him based on the document,” Daudu insisted.
- Enitan responded that fair hearing principles allow the prosecution to question the witness further.
“Fair hearing demands that the complainant too has the right to examine this, because Section 36 of the Constitution talks about fair hearing,” he said.
- Daudu maintained that, under Nigerian law, the prosecution could only re-examine the witness.
“We are not saying they cannot re-examine the witness.
“That is what Section 36 says about a fair hearing. But if it is to cross-examine him, he will have to show us the law that permits that.
“He cannot come under the guise of a fair hearing to cross-examine the witness,” Daudu said.
- After hearing both sides on the matter, Justice Nwite adjourned proceedings until June 26 for ruling.
- The court also fixed June 27, July 3, and July 4 for the continuation of the trial.
Backstory
The EFCC and other security agencies had previously declared Bello wanted, citing an inability to arrest him.
The EFCC later accused the Kogi State government of shielding Bello by invoking immunity.
Eventually, Bello was arrested, and another fraud case was filed against him at the FCT High Court. Both matters remain pending.