The trial of former Kogi State Governor, Yahaya Adoza Bello before Justice Maryanne Anineh of the Federal Capital Territory High Court, Maitama, Abuja, continued on Wednesday, November 13, 2025, with the defence counsel cross-examining the sixth prosecution witness, Mashelia Arhyel Bata, a compliance officer with Zenith Bank.
Bello is being prosecuted by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission, EFCC, 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 ₦110.4 billion.
At the resumed sitting on Thursday, defence counsel, Yahaya Abdullahi, SAN, representing the first and second defendants, cross-examined Bata, who had on Tuesday detailed before the court a series of multiple and persistent cash withdrawals from the Kogi State Government accounts domiciled in Zenith Bank.
During the cross-examination, Abdullahi requested for Exhibit S1, the statement of account of the Kogi State Government House, which the witness confirmed. “Yes, my lord, Exhibit S1 is the statement of account of the Kogi State Government House,” he said.
Abdullahi then asked the witness to confirm whether every account has a relationship officer. The witness answered, “That’s correct, my lord.” When asked further if the relationship officer has more intimacy with the account, he replied, “Yes, my lord.”
At this time, the lead defence counsel J.B Daudu SAN, arrived and took over from Abdullahi. Daudu proceeded to Exhibit S2, which contained the mandate to the signatories of the account. Responding to questions, Bata said, “That’s correct, my lord. This account was opened sometime around 2005.”
Pressed to name the initial signatories, the witness said, “At the time of opening, the signatories were Chris Onyepola, Onyechukwu Daniel L., and Abdulsalami Hudu.”
He further stated that over time, new signatories were introduced to the account.
“By looking at the mandate, my lord, the signatories to the account included Oricha Umar Shuaibu, who was introduced in 2016; Mr. Ahmed Idris in 2018; and Mr. Alhassan Omakoji in 2019,” he said.
Continuing his line of questioning, Daudu asked the witness about the Central Bank of Nigeria, CBN’s withdrawal limits for individuals and corporate entities at the time. Bata responded, “The ₦10 million withdrawal limit was for corporate bodies, my lord, as at that time.” When asked about individual withdrawal limits, he said, “Then, the limit for individuals was ₦500,000, my lord.”
Daudu further inquired whether the bank pays signatories and representatives on the account. The witness replied, “Yes, my lord, the bank pays the signatories and recognizes representatives introduced to the account.”
On whether the person withdrawing the amounts in a consistent manner must be a signatory, Bata responded, “Yes, my lord.”
Pressed further on whether he could affirm that the second defendant withdrew the monies consistently, even though he was not the account officer, Bata replied, “I can say that because he appears on the mandate to run the account.”
Counsel to the defendants then drew the witness’s attention to the entry of December 15, 2017, in Exhibit S1, asking him to identify the beneficiary of multiple ₦10 million withdrawals. The witness answered, “On the 15th of December 2017, Umar Comfort Olufunke made 19 withdrawals totaling ₦119 million. Of the total withdrawals, eight were bearing ‘Umar Comfort, while seven were under the name ‘Umar Comfort Olufunke’, and 4, Umar Comfort O. totaling 19 withdrawals of ₦10 million each.
Daudu further asked what could be responsible for the slight variations in the names, prompting an objection from the prosecution counsel Kemi Pinheiro, SAN.
Pinheiro argued that the question called for speculation, which is not permissible under the Evidence Act. “My lord, the question is speculative. The witness cannot speculate; he can only speak to what is on the document,” he said.
Responding, Daudu contended that the question was not speculative but intended to clarify whether the entries referred to the same person. “My lord, this is not speculation. The names are three, and we only seek to know whether it is the same person and whether the instrument or any supporting document can clarify that,” he said.
In her ruling, Justice Anineh upheld the objection made by Pinheiro, stating that the question in its current form could lead to speculative testimony. “Asking the witness ‘who’ is where the problem lies, because he would then have to speak beyond the document,” the judge said.
Pinheiro added, “My lord, the witness’s evidence cannot differ from the contents of the document unless the question is rephrased.”
The witness then clarified his position, saying, “I need to explain something, my lord. I’m speaking not of myself but from a document. Even if I’m not the one testifying, any other person would say exactly what is on the document. Respectfully, I cannot assume on these documents. If I am to answer, we need to see an introduction letter that would tell whether that name belongs to one person.”
After the exchanges, Justice Anineh adjourned the matter to January 15 and 16, and February 10, 11, and March 11 & 12, 2026 for continuation of trial.
