A witness of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC), Nicholas Ojehomon, told Justice Emeka Nweze of a Federal High Court sitting in Abuja that neither the Kogi State Government nor any of its local governments ever transferred funds into the bank account of the American International School in Abuja as school fees.
The 3rd prosecution witness in the alleged money laundering charges filed by EFCC against the former governor of Kogi State, Yahaya Bello, also said Bello’s name never appeared among the parents that paid school fees for their children.
During cross-examination by Yahaya Bello’s counsel, Joseph Daudu, SAN, Nicholas Ojehomon, an internal auditor at the American International School, Abuja, after perusing the school bank account statement insisted that there was no transfer bearing the name Yahaya Bello in the documents.
Justice Emeka Nwite had earlier rejected the EFCC’s objection to the admissibility of a judgment of the Federal Capital Territory High Court in suit number FCT/HC/CV/2574/2023 between Mr Ali Bello and Incorporated Trustees of American International School.
At the last hearing, the judge adjourned to rule on the admissibility of the judgment, which had decided in favour of the defendant the issue of payment of fees or refund in the ongoing case.
While delivering his ruling, he said the objection of the prosecution was preemptive, adding that the court had since moved away from the platform of technicalities to the platform of substantial justice.
The judge recalled that the EFCC lawyer, Kemi Pinheiro, SAN, had, at the last hearing, on March 7, 2025, objected to the admissibility of the documents, saying the trial was a criminal trial and the defendant could not tender documents when the prosecution had not closed its case.
He therefore urged the court to reject the document.
Counsel to the defendant, Joseph Daudu, SAN, had, however, argued that the admissibility of the document was exclusively by the principle of relevance.
In his ruling, Justice Nwite said the issue of tendering documents was governed by the law, looking at: “whether the facts are pleaded, whether the documents are relevant, whether the documents are admissible.”
He added, “Admissibility of documents is strictly guided by law as far as it satisfies the provision of Section 102 and 104 of the Evidence Act.
“The question is: at what point can the defendant tender documents?”
Justice Nwite said the court was inclined to agree with the counsel to the defendant, noting that the court was already on the platform of substantial justice.
“Consequently, the argument that the defence cannot present the document is hereby discountenanced,” the judge declared.
“Having said that, the objection of the prosecution is indeed preemptive. Consequently, the objection of the learned counsel to the prosecution is hereby overruled.
“The document sought to be tendered is hereby marked as Exhibit 19,” Nwite said.
The witness, who is the 3rd Prosecution witness, while being cross-examined, said he had worked with the American International School for eight years and was employed as an internal auditor.
When he was given Exhibit 19 (the FCT Court judgment), and asked to read out parts of the judgment, the prosecution counsel, Olukayode Enitan, SAN, objected.
“The witness has already been shown the exhibit admitted as evidence. Anything that needs to be done with the judgment is not within his opinion. That is for those of us here because the witness is not a legal expert. Let us save time by not asking the witness this,” he said.
“I am not asking for the witness’ opinion. I am speaking to the document just the same way they did,” Daudu SAN responded.
The EFCC lawyer said the difference between the document and the ones they tendered “is that those documents are not judgments of the court.”
“But it has been tendered and admitted by the court. I should be allowed to conduct my case the way I like. My lord, what I am saying is that I should be allowed to conduct my case because it may be devastating to my case if I am not allowed to,” the Defendant’s Counsel stated. The judge agreed.
The witness, therefore, read out the part of the judgment that said there was no court order for the school to return the money to EFCC or any judgment declaring the money as proceeds of money laundering.
The judgment also said AISA ought not to have paid the money to the EFCC and that AISA cannot pay the EFCC or any other person monies paid under the future fee agreement without an order of the Court.
In addition, the judgment held that AISA had a binding contract with the Bello family on future fee payments of school fees of children in the school, which they cannot derogate.
The witness also admitted that Yahaya Bello’s name was not on the letter requesting the payment of $760,910 to American International School.
Regarding the source of the payment of school fees to the school, the EFCC witness admitted that there was no wire transfer from the Kogi State Government or any of the local governments in the state.
“If you check the entire statement, is there any wired transfer from the Kogi State government? Is there any column?” the defendant’s lawyer asked.
“No, there is no such name,” the witness responded. “What of any local government,” the Defendant’s lawyer asked. Again, the witness said, “No.”
Justice Nwite, after this, adjourned the case to May 9, 2025, for continuation of the trial.