Drama in Court as EFCC, Yahaya Bello’s Lawyer Clash Over Witness Statement

There was tension at the Federal High Court in Abuja on Thursday as lawyers representing the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) and former Kogi State Governor, Yahaya Bello, disagreed sharply over the handling of a witness statement.

The dispute forced the court to step in and fix April 24, 2026, for a ruling on the matter.

Justice Emeka Nwite adjourned proceedings after listening to arguments from both sides on whether the EFCC could present a previous statement made by its witness during trial. The issue arose during the ongoing money laundering case involving the former governor.

The disagreement started when EFCC counsel, Mr. Kemi Pinheiro, SAN, attempted to reintroduce Exhibit 46, which is the earlier statement made by the 12th prosecution witness, Abdullahi Jamilu. The move was immediately challenged by Yahaya Bello’s lead counsel, Joseph Daudu, SAN.

Daudu strongly opposed the request. He argued that the prosecution could not confront its own witness with a prior statement unless the court first declared the witness hostile. According to him, the proper legal procedure must be followed before such a step is taken.

“My Lord, I object. If learned counsel intends to contradict his witness, he must first apply to have him declared a hostile witness.

“The witness has clearly stated that the transactions took place only at his office and that of Abba Adaudu. Counsel cannot rely on this document to contradict or augment the witness’s oral evidence without following due procedure,” he argued.

The objection followed a moment in court when the witness gave testimony that appeared to differ from what he had earlier told the EFCC in his written statement.

During his testimony, Abdullahi Jamilu, who owns Kumfayakum Global Limited, explained that he received funds from one Abba Adaudu, converted the money into United States dollars, and handed it over to him. He said these exchanges took place either in his office or at Adaudu’s office in Abuja.

However, when asked if he ever delivered the funds at any other location, the witness insisted he could only confirm transactions carried out in the offices mentioned. This response appeared to conflict with details in his earlier statement.

At that point, the prosecution sought to draw his attention to the previous statement to refresh his memory. But the defence objected, insisting that such a move amounted to contradicting the witness without following due legal steps.

Responding, Pinheiro maintained that he was not attempting to discredit the witness but only to assist him in recalling events more clearly. He told the court that the transactions in question happened as far back as 2022 and that the law allows a witness to refresh memory using prior statements.

He cited relevant provisions of the Evidence Act to support his position and argued that his approach was within the law.

The defence, however, disagreed. Daudu insisted that the authorities cited by the prosecution did not apply in this situation. He argued that the prosecution was indirectly treating its own witness as hostile without seeking the court’s permission.

“My contention is that my learned counsel is attempting to treat his witness as hostile by confronting him with prior statements already tendered as exhibits.

“This amounts to contradiction without first seeking leave of Court to declare the witness hostile, contrary to Section 230 of the Evidence Act.

“I further rely on Ibe v. State (1997) LPELR-1389 (SC), which addresses the consequences of breaching this provision,” Daudu, SAN stated.

After listening to both sides, Justice Nwite decided to suspend further arguments on the issue. He adjourned the case to April 24, 2026, when the court will deliver its ruling and continue with the trial.

Earlier in the proceedings, the witness had made several disclosures during his examination-in-chief. He denied making any cash deposits at the Lokoja branch of Access Bank, despite records showing transactions linked to his name.

He explained that while names like Abdullahi Jemilu or Jemilu Abdullahi appeared in deposit records, he did not personally carry out those transactions.

According to him, the deposits made on October 8 and 11, 2021, as well as March 17, 2022, were done by Abba Adaudu at the Lokoja branch. He maintained that after receiving the funds, he converted them into dollars and handed the cash back to Adaudu.

The witness was also questioned about transactions reflected in the account statement of Kumfayakum Global Limited. He confirmed receiving N100 million on December 15, 2021, and N400 million on December 17, 2021, from Keyless Nature Limited.

He further told the court that the company belongs to Abba Adaudu. He also confirmed another inflow into his account from Ejadams Essence Limited on February 18, 2022.

With the legal arguments unresolved, the court will now determine whether the EFCC can rely on the earlier statement of the witness as part of its case.