Connect with us

EFCC

Yahaya Bello: Court Adjourns to Rule on Admissibility of Deed of Assignment, Irrevocable Power of Attorney

Published

on

Justice Emeka Nwite of the Federal High Court, Maitama, Abuja, on Tuesday, March 9, 2026, adjourned to rule on the admissibility of a Deed of Assignment and an Irrevocable Power of Attorney tendered by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) in the ongoing trial of former Kogi State Governor, Yahaya Adoza Bello.

The judge fixed the date after listening to extensive arguments from counsel over the admissibility of the two documents relating to the sale of Plot 1160, Cadastral Zone, Gwarimpa 2, Abuja, allegedly sold for ₦100 million.

Bello is being prosecuted by the EFCC on a 19-count charge bordering on alleged money laundering to the tune of ₦80,246,470,088.88.

The controversy arose when prosecution counsel, Chukwudi Enebeli, SAN, sought to tender the Deed of Assignment and the Irrevocable Power of Attorney through PW10, Mahmoud Abdulaziz, Chief Accountant of Dantata & Sawoe Construction Limited.

Abdulaziz testified that the company sold the property, measuring 8,240.72 square metres, to Azba Real Estate Limited for ₦100 million. According to him, the payment was made in tranches: ₦70 million on February 17, 2021; ₦10 million on February 19; and ₦20 million on February 22, 2021, via electronic transfers into the company’s Keystone Bank account.

He stated that Maigari Murtala made the transfers, while the Deed of Assignment was executed between Dantata & Sawoe and Azba Real Estate Limited and signed by Mubarak Dantata, Nasiru Dantata and Ali Bello. He further told the court that an Irrevocable Power of Attorney was executed between Mubarak Dantata and Ali Bello, and that the documents were submitted to the EFCC during the investigation.

However, defence counsel, J.B. Daudu, SAN, objected to their admissibility on three grounds.

“My lord, the first document is an irrevocable power of attorney and the second is a deed of assignment in respect of the same land. These are registrable instruments relating to title and ought to have been registered,” he said.

He submitted that only Certified True Copies (CTCs) from the appropriate land registry would be admissible, contending that the EFCC was not the custodian of land documents and that the purported certification by an EFCC official was contrary to Section 114 of the Evidence Act.

“On these three grounds, my lord, these documents are inadmissible,” Daudu maintained.

Responding, Kemi Pinheiro, SAN, described the objection as a misconception of the law.

“The evidence of the witness is unambiguous. He has led oral evidence of the transaction and receipt of money. These documents are being tendered to anchor that oral evidence,” he said.

He stressed that the case was a criminal prosecution for money laundering and not a civil dispute over land title.

“This is about financial crimes and the flow of funds. We are not tendering these documents to prove title or ownership. This court does not have jurisdiction to determine title to land,” he argued.

Pinheiro further submitted that a document inadmissible for one purpose may be admissible for another, and that once a private document is submitted to a public officer during an investigation, it becomes a public document in custody and may be certified.

Citing Audu v. FRN (2025) 5 NWLR (Pt. 1984) 61, he contended that the Supreme Court had settled the issue.

In reply, Daudu insisted that no specific purpose had been clearly stated for tendering the documents other than to juxtapose the names of the payer and the signatory.

“Even if it is to be admitted as a receipt, there must be a consideration clause; otherwise, it is inadmissible,” he argued.

Pinheiro countered that the Deed of Assignment contained a consideration clause and urged the court to admit both documents.

After hearing both sides, Justice Nwite adjourned until March 9, 2026, for a ruling on their admissibility and continuation of the trial.

Earlier in the proceedings, the defence informed the court of a pending application seeking leave to vacate an earlier order granting the defendant permission to travel for lesser Hajj.

Daudu told the court that both parties had filed applications and were engaged in discussions, requesting time to report on the outcome.

“We have advanced in discussions. If my lord can grant us until March 9 just to report on whether this application would be necessary,” he said.

Pinheiro confirmed that discussions had taken place and that the prosecution would respond to issues relating to a Red Notice.

“My lord, I confirm we had discussions. Monday is convenient. We will respond to the application on the Red Notice,” he said, adding that “all the airports in the Middle East are closed.”

Under cross-examination of PW8, an FCMB official, the witness confirmed that Exhibit 37 was the statement of account of Kunfayakun Global Limited from January 1, 2018, to December 31, 2024.

He told the court he was neither the account officer nor the relationship manager and had no direct relationship with the account signatories.

He confirmed a ₦100 million inflow on December 15 from Keyless Nature Limited but said he could not determine the purpose of the transfer.

On a ₦400 million RTGS inflow on December 17, 2021, he explained that RTGS means Real Time Gross Settlement, but maintained he did not know the business relationship between the parties.

Similarly, he confirmed a ₦600 million inflow from Ejadams on February 18, 2022, but said he did not know the purpose of the transaction. He was subsequently discharged.

PW9, Oluwafemi Victoria, a compliance officer with Polaris Bank, testified under subpoena, which was admitted as Exhibit 38, while statements of account and a certificate of identification were admitted as Exhibits 39 and 40.

She confirmed multiple ₦10 million inflows into JIT Limited’s account on November 23 and 24, 2021, from Musa Nura, Yusuf Mubarak and Maishanu Global Industry, totalling ₦150 million.

On SSP Foods Limited’s account, she identified 10 credit entries on November 24, 2021, including ₦70 million from Inganchi Synergy and ₦70 million from Murtala Maigari, among others, amounting to ₦250 million.

Under cross-examination, she stated that she was neither the account officer nor the relationship manager and did not know the business relationships behind the transactions.

The matter continues on March 9, 2026.

Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

EFCC

Alleged $6bn Mambilla Project Fraud: Witness Clarifies Certification of FEC Meeting Extracts

Published

on

The Fifth Prosecution Witness (PW5) in the trial of former Minister of Power, Olu Agunloye, on Wednesday, June 10, 2026, clarified issues surrounding the certification of the extract of the minutes of the Federal Executive Council (FEC) meeting of May 21, 2003, before Justice Jude Onwuegbuzie of the Federal Capital Territory (FCT) High Court, Apo, Abuja, following a formal request by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) for certified extracts of the meeting.

The former minister is facing prosecution on an amended seven-count charge bordering on alleged official corruption and the fraudulent award of the Mambilla Power Project contract worth $6 billion to Sunrise Power Transmission Company Limited.

The witness, Iliya John Iyakwari, an Assistant Director of Legal in the Federal Ministry of Justice, currently serving in the Federal Ministry of Power as an Assistant Legal Adviser since August 2014, stated during cross-examination by defence counsel, Adeola Adedipe, SAN, that the request for a certified copy of the extract of the FEC meeting of May 21, 2003, was received from the EFCC in July 2023.

He explained that the certification was eventually done in 2024 because, upon receipt of the request letter from the User Department, the Legal Department forwarded a memo to the EFCC dated July 27, 2023, but the initial copy sent to the Commission was not certified, prompting the EFCC to return it.

“It was after it was received by the EFCC in July 2023 that they realised the extract was not certified. So, in January 2024, a staff of the EFCC brought back Exhibit Three K to my Legal Adviser, and the name of the EFCC staff is Babangida.

“He brought it personally and reminded my director that it was not certified. My director then gave me the document to certify. That is why my lord will see on the face of the document that the date it was certified, January 26, 2024, is different from the date it was forwarded. It was in the process of certification that I mistakenly stamped the original forwarding letter dated June 27, 2023. After stamping the document, I gave it back to my director, who I believe handed it over to Babangida because I left them afterwards,” he said.

When asked whether his earlier testimony suggesting certification in June 2023 was contradictory, prosecution counsel, Abba Mohammed, SAN, defended the witness’ position, insisting that the testimony was not contradictory and that court records spoke for themselves.

“My lord, I object to this particular question anchored on Exhibit PW5A, which was just tendered in court. What I see in our record, and what I believe is reflected in the records of the court, is that in his explanation, he summarised that all these activities were done in June 2023; he never said the certification was done in 2023.

“This objection is founded on Section 36 of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, which is superior to the Evidence Act. We will rely on the record of the court, particularly line 16,” he said.

The witness was also asked whether the document tendered in court by Babangida during his testimony was a different extract of the FEC meeting from the one he certified.

The prosecution counsel again objected, arguing that the witness, in line with court procedure, was absent from the courtroom during Babangida’s testimony and therefore could not be cross-examined on a document that was not tendered through him. He cited the case of Buhari v. INEC & Others (2008).

Justice Onwuegbuzie adjourned the matter until June 18 and July 2, 2026, for the continuation of trial.

Continue Reading

EFCC

EFCC Arraigns Three Over Alleged ₦10bn Fidelity Bank Fraud in Lagos

Published

on

The Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) has arraigned three men and another suspect currently at large before the Lagos State High Court sitting in Ikeja over an alleged ₦10 billion fraud involving Fidelity Bank Plc.

The defendants, identified as Ibeh Emmanuel, Chidiebere Ihekoronye, Akubuo Chimuanya, and Austen Peaks Aniekan, who is currently at large, were brought before Justice Olubusola A. Okunuga on Wednesday on a five-count charge bordering on conspiracy, obtaining by false pretence, possession of fraudulent documents, and forgery.

According to the EFCC, the defendants allegedly conspired to fraudulently obtain ₦10 billion from Fidelity Bank Plc through forged documents and false representations.

One of the charges alleged that on or about April 16, 2026, the defendants, with intent to defraud, conspired among themselves to obtain the sum of ₦10 billion from Fidelity Bank Plc by falsely claiming that Maton Engineering Limited, which maintains account number 4011468821 with the bank, had issued an irrevocable standing order directing the reservation, blocking, and transfer of the funds in favour of Prospera Finance Limited, domiciled with Wema Bank Plc.

The anti-graft agency stated that the representation was false and that the defendants were fully aware of its falsity at the time it was made.

The commission further alleged that the defendants attempted to obtain the said amount based on the same purported instruction and false representation.

According to the charge, the alleged offences contravene Sections 1(1)(a), 8(a), and 1(3) of the Advance Fee Fraud and Other Fraud Related Offences Act, 2006.

The EFCC also accused Emmanuel of being in possession of a document purportedly issued by Fidelity Bank Plc confirming the existence of blocked funds amounting to ₦10 billion in favour of Prospera Finance Limited, which he allegedly knew to be false.

In addition, the defendants were accused of forging a document titled, “Confirmation of Ten Billion Naira (₦10,000,000,000.00) Blocked Funds in Favour of Prospera Finance Limited,” purportedly emanating from Fidelity Bank Plc.

The commission alleged that the document was knowingly fabricated without lawful authority, contrary to Section 365(1) of the Criminal Law of Lagos State, 2015.

When the charges were read to them, the defendants pleaded not guilty.

Following their plea, prosecution counsel, A.A. Usman, urged the court to fix a date for trial and requested that the defendants be remanded in a correctional facility pending the determination of their bail applications.

Justice Okunuga subsequently ordered that the defendants be remanded at the Ikoyi Correctional Centre and adjourned the matter until June 18, 2026, for the hearing of their bail applications and the commencement of trial.

The EFCC stated that investigations into the alleged fraud are ongoing, while efforts are being intensified to apprehend the fourth defendant, Aniekan, who remains at large.

Continue Reading

EFCC

EFCC Arraigns Blessing CEO for Fresh Alleged ₦69.1m Fraud

Published

on

The Lagos Zonal Directorate 1 of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC), on Tuesday, June 9, 2026, arraigned a social media influencer, Okoro Blessing Nkiruka (a.k.a. Blessing CEO), before Justice R.A. Oshodi of the Special Offences Court sitting in Ikeja, Lagos, over an alleged ₦69,150,000 fraud.

Nkiruka was arraigned on a two-count charge bordering on obtaining money by false pretence and stealing to the tune of ₦69,150,000.

At the commencement of proceedings, prosecution counsel, C.C. Okezie, urged the court to proceed with the arraignment, arguing that the defendant had been duly served with the charge.

However, defence counsel, Nkama Nneka, informed the court that service of the charge had only recently been effected.

In his ruling, Justice Oshodi held that the arraignment should proceed in accordance with the law. Consequently, the charges were read to the defendant.

Count one reads: “That you, OKORO BLESSING NKIRUKA, on or about March 21, 2025, in Lagos, within the jurisdiction of this Honourable Court, by false pretence and with intent to defraud, induced Hope Chiropractic Health Clinic Limited to confer a benefit of ₦69,150,000 (Sixty-Nine Million, One Hundred and Fifty Thousand Naira) on you under the representation that the property located at No. 1 Tunbosun Osobu Street, Lekki, belonged to you and was leased to the company for a period of five years, a representation you knew to be false, thereby committing an offence contrary to Section 1(2) and punishable under Section 1(3) of the Advance Fee Fraud and Other Related Offences Act.”

Count two reads: “That you, OKORO BLESSING NKIRUKA, on or about March 21, 2025, in Lagos, within the jurisdiction of this Honourable Court, dishonestly converted to your own use the sum of ₦69,150,000 (Sixty-Nine Million, One Hundred and Fifty Thousand Naira), being the property of Hope Chiropractic Health Clinic Limited, thereby committing an offence of stealing contrary to Section 280(2) and punishable under Section 287 of the Criminal Law of Lagos State, 2015.”

The defendant pleaded “not guilty” to the charges when they were read to her.

Following her plea, Okezie asked for a trial date and prayed the court to remand the defendant in EFCC custody pending her scheduled arraignment before the Federal High Court, Ikoyi, Lagos, on June 10, 2026, in another alleged fraud case.

Consequently, Justice Oshodi remanded the defendant in EFCC custody and adjourned the matter till July 16, 2026, for the hearing of the bail application and commencement of trial.

In a related development, Justice D.I. Dipeolu of the Federal High Court, Ikoyi, Lagos, on Tuesday, June 9, 2026, granted Blessing Nkiruka, who is being prosecuted for an alleged ₦36 million fraud, bail in the sum of ₦10 million with two sureties in like sum.

One of the sureties must be a family member and is required to provide proof of employment, a Bank Verification Number (BVN), National Identification Number (NIN), and a valid phone number.

The sureties must also submit a valid international passport, tax clearance certificates for the last two years, and six passport photographs.

The defendant was earlier arraigned on a two-count charge by the Lagos Zonal Directorate 1 of the EFCC bordering on obtaining money by false pretence and stealing to the tune of ₦36 million.

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © 2025 JaraJournal.