A prosecution witness in the ongoing alleged N110.4 billion fraud trial involving
Yahaya Bello, former Governor of Kogi State, on Friday narrated before the Federal Capital Territory High Court in Maitama, Abuja, how a high valued property in Maitama district was allegedly purchased for the naira equivalent of N950 million paid in United States dollars.
The witness, Ramalan Abdullahi, who testified as the 15th prosecution witness (PW15), appeared before Maryanne Anineh (Justice) Justice during the resumed hearing of the case instituted by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission.
The anti-graft agency is prosecuting Bello alongside Umar Shuaibu Oricha and Abdulsalami Hudu on a 16-count charge bordering on alleged criminal breach of trust and money laundering amounting to N110.4 billion.
While being led in evidence by Kemi Pinheiro, prosecution counsel, Abdullahi, a legal practitioner with the Federal Capital Development Authority, told the court that he became involved in the property transaction sometime in January 2022 after receiving a call from a friend who requested that he conduct due diligence on a property located at 35 Danube Street.
According to the witness, the property was introduced to his friend by agents who wanted to facilitate its sale.
“I picked a call from my friend who informed me that some agents introduced him to this property to sell and that I can conduct due diligence on it,” he told the court.
When asked who he interfaced with during the transaction, Abdullahi said he dealt with Ali Bello through one Shehu Bello.
“Ali Bello through Shehu Bello. The payment of the property was in naira, paid in dollars equivalent to ₦950 million,” he stated.
The witness further testified that he prepared all the necessary title documents associated with the transaction and handed them over to Ali Bello.
According to him, the property documents were prepared in the name of White Tree Nigeria Limited, which he identified as the assignee in the transaction.
“I was given a name, White Tree Nigeria Limited, as the assignee. I prepared the deed of assignment between Palchi Ventures Nigeria Plc and White Tree Nigeria Limited as the assignee for the deed of assignment. And the power of attorney was given to the same party,” he said.
Abdullahi added that the instruction to use White Tree Nigeria Limited came directly from Ali Bello.
“The person that gave me the name of White Tree Limited was Ali Bello,” he testified.
He also maintained that the entire payment for the property was made in dollars.
During cross-examination by Abdullahi Yahaya, counsel to the first and second defendants, the witness confirmed that he had earlier testified before the Federal High Court in relation to the matter.
Asked whether he received instructions from a particular individual in handling the transaction, the witness responded that the directive came from Shehu Bello.
Under further cross-examination by counsel to the third defendant, Z. E. Abbas, Abdullahi stated that he had never met Abdulsalami Hudu.
Earlier in the proceedings, Pinheiro informed the court that the matter had earlier been adjourned for rulings on pending applications and possible continuation of trial proceedings.
He disclosed that the prosecution had served counsel to the third defendant with an application seeking suspension and stay of proceedings.
However, Abbas argued that the application was not ripe for hearing because it was only served on him around 4 p.m. on Thursday, and therefore sought an adjournment until Tuesday.
Pinheiro opposed the request, insisting that the application filed by the third defendant was substantially similar to the one earlier filed by counsel to the first and second defendants.
“The third defendant is arguing the same thing. Same prayers. If my application is granted, it will affect their application too because it’s the same prayers. It will save time,” he argued.
But Abbas disagreed, maintaining that both applications were distinct.
Anineh subsequently ruled that the third defendant would move his application on the next adjourned date.
The prosecution later applied to withdraw an earlier application dated May 6, 2026.
“My lord, the application I wish to withdraw is dated 6th of May, 2026. We have already argued it,” Pinheiro told the court.
With no objection from the defence team, the court granted the request for withdrawal.
Abbas thereafter moved an application challenging the jurisdiction of the court, urging Anineh to strike out the trial on the grounds that the court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the matter.
In response, prosecution counsel Adetokunbo opposed the application, informing the court that the prosecution had filed a 20-paragraph counter-affidavit together with a written address challenging the defence argument.
He argued that the application was defective because the applicant was not a defendant in the matters before the Federal High Court, which formed the basis of the jurisdictional challenge.
“My lord, this shows that the foundation of the application is weak and must collapse,” he submitted.
The prosecution further argued that the charges before Anineh differed substantially from those before the Federal High Court.
According to Adetokunbo, while the Federal High Court matter bordered on alleged money laundering offences, the charges before the FCT High Court related primarily to criminal breach of trust.
“So my lord, it is apparent that the two charges are different and distinct,” he argued.
He also maintained that authorities cited by the defence, including FRN vs Agaba and FRN vs Yahaya, were not applicable to the present case because the legal issues were different.
Following the conclusion of arguments and with no re-examination of the witness, the judge discharged PW15 and adjourned the case until May 22, 2026, for ruling on the three pending applications.
The court also fixed June 16 and 17, 2026, for continuation of trial proceedings.
