By Peace Udugba
The Federal Capital Territory (FCT) High Court sitting in Maitama, Abuja, on Tuesday dismissed an application filed by former Kogi State Governor, Yahaya Adoza Bello, challenging the court’s jurisdiction to hear the N110.4 billion alleged fraud case instituted against him by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC).
Bello is standing trial alongside Umar Shuaibu Oricha and Abdulsalami Hudu on a 16-count charge bordering on alleged criminal breach of trust and money laundering involving N110.4 billion.
In his application, Bello sought an order striking out the charge marked FCT/CR/778/2024: Federal Republic of Nigeria v. Yahaya Adoza Bello & 2 Ors, arguing that the FCT High Court lacked the territorial jurisdiction to entertain the matter. He also contended that the proceedings constituted an abuse of court process because a related charge, No. FHC/ABJ/CR/98/2024, is pending before the Federal High Court in Abuja.
Opposing the application, prosecution counsel, Kemi Pinheiro (SAN), described the motion as misconceived and aimed at delaying the trial. He argued that the offences were brought under the Penal Code and were therefore properly triable before the FCT High Court.
Pinheiro further submitted that the properties allegedly acquired with proceeds of the offences and forming the basis of the charges are located within Abuja, thereby conferring territorial jurisdiction on the court.
On the allegation of abuse of court process, the senior advocate maintained that the charge before the FCT High Court is distinct from the matter before the Federal High Court. According to him, the FCT case primarily concerns allegations of criminal breach of trust and conspiracy under the Penal Code, while the Federal High Court matter relates to alleged violations of the Money Laundering (Prohibition) Act.
He argued that the two cases differ in both substance and legal foundation and therefore do not amount to an abuse of court process. The prosecution also noted that the parties involved in both matters are not the same, as Bello is the sole defendant before the Federal High Court but is being tried alongside two co-defendants before the FCT High Court.
Delivering a ruling, Justice Maryanne Anenih upheld the prosecution’s arguments and held that the court possessed the requisite jurisdiction to hear the case.
The judge also ruled that the proceedings did not amount to an abuse of court process and consequently dismissed Bello’s application for lacking merit. A similar application filed by the third defendant was equally dismissed.
Following the ruling, the trial resumed with the prosecution calling its 16th witness, Baba Isah Usman Baffa.
Led in evidence by prosecution counsel Chukwudi Enebeli (SAN), Baffa told the court that he was familiar with Sherrif Plaza, Abuja, a commercial shopping complex located at Plot 739 and comprising 276 shops.
He testified that Ali Bello approached his company to purchase a shop in the plaza.
“He came to our office, made enquiries about the shops and indicated interest in buying one. We gave him the prospective form and the requirements. He met the requirements, we gave him an account number and he made the payment,” the witness said.
According to Baffa, Ali Bello purchased Shop B13 for N66 million. He stated that an initial payment of N40 million was made into the company’s FCMB account, while the balance of N26 million was paid later.
He added that upon completion of the payments, the company issued an allocation letter and formally allocated the shop to the purchaser.
Under cross-examination by defence counsel P. B. Daudu (SAN), the witness said he could identify Ali Bello if he saw him. He denied having any personal relationship with him and stated that he first met him during the property transaction, although he could not recall the exact date.
Baffa also confirmed that documents were exchanged during the transaction and acknowledged that he had previously testified on the same property before the Federal High Court in Abuja.
When asked whether he knew Yahaya Bello, the witness replied that he knew him only as “a public figure.”
The witness was subsequently discharged after the prosecution declined re-examination.
The prosecution then called its 17th witness, Shenu Bello, an estate agent and commodity trader.
Testifying through prosecution counsel Olukayode Enitan (SAN), the witness said he had previously been invited by the EFCC over investigations into several property transactions and had made a statement to the commission.
He disclosed that he facilitated the acquisition of multiple properties on behalf of Ali Bello.
According to the witness, he sold a property located at Plot 1773, Guzape District, Abuja, to Ali Bello for N48 million. He also testified that Plot 31, Guzape District, purchased from Alhaji Jimeta, was sold for N100 million.
The witness further stated that a property located at Plot A02/176, Block 488B, Lome Street, Wuse Zone 7, Abuja, was purchased by Dr. Faruk Bello for N105 million.
Regarding a property at No. 1 Ikogosi Spring Road, Maitama, Abuja, he told the court that Faruk Bello acquired it from Efab Estate for N550 million.
“It was paid in United States dollars, in cash,” he said, adding that his commission was also paid in cash.
On Plot 1981, Dalla Hills, Maitama, the witness said he was not involved in the initial purchase but introduced Ali Bello to Metro Dec Construction Limited, the company handling the development of the property.
He disclosed that he made several payments on Ali Bello’s behalf to the contractor, including N5.5 million, N9.8 million, N8 million and $6,000.
The witness also testified about Property No. 1058/1058, Cadastral Zone A08, Wuse II, Abuja, popularly known as Durban Street.
According to him, Ali Bello instructed him to source the property because he intended to develop a shopping plaza on the site.
“I got him that property at Durban Street, we negotiated the property and it was bought at N650 million from FSC Food Limited,” he told the court.
Following the witness’s examination-in-chief, defence counsel Daudu sought an adjournment, arguing that proceedings had gone on for an extended period and noting that he had not previously requested a postponement in the matter.
However, Enitan opposed the request, arguing that the witness had spent less than 20 minutes in the witness box and had not introduced any new issues.
“The evidence is consistent. The prosecution is mindful of time and has other witnesses in court. The witness may not be available tomorrow and that is why we kept the examination-in-chief brief,” he submitted.
After hearing both parties, Justice Anenih adjourned the matter until June 17, 2026, for continuation of trial.
