A Federal High Court in Abuja has adjourned proceedings in the alleged money laundering trial of former Kogi State governor, Yahaya Bello, to May 6 for the continuation of cross-examination of the prosecution’s 12th witness, Abdullahi Jamilu.
The trial judge, Emeka Nwite, fixed the date after defence counsel, Joseph Daudu, was unable to conclude questioning of the witness during Friday’s session.
During the hearing, Jamilu was presented with a copy of the statement he made to the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC), which he confirmed was written on May 10, 2022. He told the court that it was the only statement he made to the agency and noted that it did not contain references to Wales Oil and Gas, Forza Oil and Gas, or Aleshua Services.
Under cross-examination, the witness recalled giving similar testimony in a related case before Obiora Egwuatu, confirming that the transactions discussed in both proceedings were the same.
Jamilu explained that he relied on colleagues to process certain dollar transactions because his personal accounts could not handle them directly. He added that the companies mentioned earlier—Wales Oil and Gas, Forza Oil and Gas, and Aleshua Services—belonged to his associates at the market, and were not included in Exhibit 46 (his statement) because he was neither asked about them nor remembered them at the time.
He further testified that instructions to transfer funds to the American International School in Abuja were given by Abba Adaudu, who approached him with a friend whose identity he could not recall. According to him, the payments were successfully made, and the telex advice (transfer receipts) were forwarded to Adaudu.
When shown documents in Exhibit 13 (P1–P14), Jamilu confirmed they were payment receipts but stated: “Yes, but I just noticed that P13 and P14 are not part of the documents I tendered as part of the payment I made for the school fees.”
Earlier, Justice Nwite dismissed an objection raised by Daudu against the prosecution’s request to re-present the witness’s statement, ruling that the argument was speculative and misconstrued.
