₦110.4bn fraud trial: Witness details Maitama deal

Nkereuwem Effiong

A prosecution witness on Friday told the Federal Capital Territory High Court in Maitama, Abuja, how a property at No. 35 Danube Street, Maitama, was allegedly purchased for the naira equivalent of ₦950 million, paid in United States dollars, in the ongoing trial of former Kogi State Governor, Yahaya Adoza Bello.

The witness, PW15, Ramalan Abdullahi, a legal practitioner with the Federal Capital Development Authority, testified before Justice Maryanne Anineh that he was contacted in January 2022 by a friend who requested that he conduct due diligence on the property after agents introduced it for sale.

The Economic and Financial Crimes Commission is prosecuting Bello alongside Umar Shuaibu Oricha and Abdulsalami Hudu on 16 counts bordering on alleged criminal breach of trust and money laundering involving ₦110.4 billion.

Led in evidence by prosecution counsel, Kemi Pinheiro (SAN), Abdullahi told the court that he dealt with Ali Bello through Shehu Bello in the transaction.

“I received a call from my friend, who informed me that some agents had introduced him to the property for sale and asked me to conduct due diligence on it,” he said.

When asked who he interfaced with as the buyer, Abdullahi replied: “Ali Bello through Shehu Bello. Payment for the property was made in naira, paid in dollars equivalent to ₦950 million.”

He further stated that he prepared and handed over the relevant title documents to Ali Bello.

“I was given the name White Tree Nigeria Limited as the assignee. I prepared the deed of assignment between Palchi Ventures Nigeria Plc and White Tree Nigeria Limited. The power of attorney was also given to the same party,” he said.

According to him, Ali Bello specifically instructed him to use White Tree Nigeria Limited.

“The person who gave me the name White Tree Limited was Ali Bello,” he added.

The witness also told the court that the full payment for the property was made in dollars.

During cross-examination by counsel to the first and second defendants, Abdullahi Yahaya (SAN), the witness confirmed that he had previously testified before the Federal High Court.

Asked whether he received instructions to work for a particular person, he said: “Yes, I received the instruction from Shehu Bello.”

Under cross-examination by counsel to the third defendant, Z. E. Abbas, Abdullahi said he never met Abdulsalami Hudu.

Earlier in the proceedings, Pinheiro informed the court that the matter had been adjourned for rulings on pending applications and possible continuation of the trial.

He also disclosed that the prosecution had served the third defendant’s counsel with an application seeking suspension and stay of proceedings.

Abbas, however, argued that the application was not ripe for hearing, stating that it was served on him around 4 pm on Thursday, and requested an adjournment until Tuesday.

Pinheiro opposed the request, contending that the third defendant’s application was similar to those earlier filed by the first and second defendants.

“The third defendant is arguing the same thing, with the same prayers. If my application is granted, it will affect their application too. It will save time,” he argued.

Abbas disagreed, insisting that the applications were different.

Justice Anineh subsequently ruled that the third defendant could move his application to the next adjourned date.

Pinheiro later applied to withdraw an earlier application dated May 6, 2026, which the court granted without objection from defence counsel.

Arguing his application challenging the court’s jurisdiction, Abbas urged the court to strike out the trial, claiming it lacked jurisdiction.

In response, prosecution counsel, Adetokunbo, said the prosecution had filed a 20-paragraph counter-affidavit and written address opposing the application.

He argued that the defence application was fundamentally defective because the applicant was not a defendant in the Federal High Court cases forming the basis of the argument.

He further maintained that the charges before Justice Anineh, centred on criminal breach of trust, were separate and distinct from the money laundering charges before the Federal High Court.

Adetokunbo also argued that the legal authorities cited by the defence were inapplicable to the present case and urged the court to dismiss what he described as an unmeritorious application.

Following the conclusion of arguments and with no re-examination, Justice Anineh discharged the witness and adjourned the matter until May 22, 2026, for rulings on the three pending applications, and June 16 and 17, 2026, for continuation of the trial.