A prosecution witness, PW15, Ramalan Abdullahi, on Friday, May 8, 2026, narrated before the Federal Capital Territory, FCT High Court, Maitama, Abuja, how a property located at No. 35 Danube Street, Maitama, Abuja, was allegedly purchased for the naira equivalent of N950 million paid in United States dollars.
Abdullahi, a legal practitioner with the Federal Capital Development Authority, FCDA, testified before Justice Maryanne Anineh in the ongoing trial of the former Kogi State Governor, Yahaya Adoza Bello.
The Economic and Financial Crimes Commission, EFCC, is prosecuting Bello alongside Umar Shuaibu Oricha and Abdulsalami Hudu on a 16-count charge bordering on criminal breach of trust and money laundering to the tune of N110.4 billion.
Led in evidence by prosecution counsel, Kemi Pinheiro, SAN, the witness told the court that sometime in January 2022, a friend informed him about the property and requested that he conduct due diligence on it.
“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 said.
When asked whom he interfaced with as the buyer of the property, the witness said: “Ali Bello through Shehu Bello. The payment of the property was in Naira. Paid in dollars equivalent to 950 million naira.”
Abdullahi further told the court that he prepared and handed over the necessary title documents to Ali Bello.
“I was given a name White Tree Nigerian 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.
According to him, the instruction to use White Tree Nigeria Limited came from Ali Bello.
“The person that gave me the name of White Tree Limited was Ali Bello,” he said.
Speaking further on the mode of payment for the property, the witness said the entire sum was paid 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 replied: “Yes. I received the instruction from Shehu Bello.”
Under cross-examination by counsel to the third defendant, Z. E. Abbas, the witness stated that he never met Abdulsalami Hudu.
Earlier in the proceedings, Pinheiro informed the court that the matter had previously been adjourned for ruling on pending applications and, if time permitted, continuation of trial.
He further disclosed that the prosecution had served the third defendant’s counsel with an application seeking suspension and stay of proceedings.
Responding, Abbas told the court that the application was not ripe for hearing, noting that it was served on him around 4pm on Thursday, and requested an adjournment till Tuesday.
Pinheiro, however, opposed the request, arguing that the application by the third defendant was similar to that earlier filed by 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 said.
Abbas disagreed, insisting that their applications were different.
Justice Anineh subsequently ruled that the third defendant could move his application at the next adjourned date.
Thereafter, Pinheiro informed the court that the prosecution wished to withdraw an application dated May 6, 2026.
“My lord, the application I wish to withdraw is dated 6th of May, 2026. We have already argued it,” he said.
With no objection from defence counsel, Justice Anineh granted the application for withdrawal.
Moving his application challenging the jurisdiction of the court, Abbas informed the court that the application, filed on March 23, 2026, sought an order striking out the trial for want of jurisdiction.
“The said application is seeking an order of the court striking out the trial in this court because it lacks jurisdiction,” Abbas submitted, urging the court to grant the application.
In response, prosecution counsel, Adetokunbo, informed the court that the prosecution had filed a 20-paragraph counter-affidavit deposed to by one Abubakar Wara on May 5, 2026, alongside a written address opposing the application.
He argued that the application was fundamentally defective because the applicant was not a defendant in the cases pending before the Federal High Court which formed the basis of his argument.
“My lord, this shows that the foundation of the application is weak and must collapse,” he said.
He further argued that the applicant himself had acknowledged that the charges before Justice Anineh, which bordered on criminal breach of trust, were different from those before the Federal High Court, which bordered on money laundering and other offences.
“So my lord it is apparent that the two charges are different and distinct,” he submitted.
Adetokunbo also contended that the authorities relied upon by the defence, including FRN vs Agaba and FRN vs Yahaya, were distinguishable from the instant case.
“It is worthy to mention the issue before the court was whether the Federal High Court has the jurisdiction to try money laundering offences, my lord that was the issue and that is not before your lordship,” he argued.
He urged the court to dismiss what he described as “this unworthy application.”
Following the conclusion of arguments and with no re-examination of the witness, Justice Anineh discharged PW15 from the witness box and adjourned the matter till May 22, 2026, for ruling on the three pending applications, and June 16 and 17, 2026, for continuation of trial.
