The Senator representing Kogi West, Sunday Karimi, has said that the ongoing controversy involving the lawmaker representing Kogi Central, Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan, in the Senate has vindicated former Governor Yahaya Bello.

Speaking to journalists in Lokoja on Sunday, Karimi stated that recent events show that Bello could not be blamed for the past disputes between him and Akpoti-Uduaghan before the National Assembly elections.

He was reacting to the face-off between the Kogi Central senator and Senate President Godswill Akpabio, which has sparked controversy.

He said, “Former Governor Yahaya Bello must have seen it coming.”

“Other Kogi lawmakers and I played major roles in ensuring that the state was not brought to ridicule, but no amount of reasoning could prevail. Our intervention was rebuffed.”

He added, “All our admonition to her fell on deaf ears. One can therefore come to terms with the fact that former Gov Yahaya Bello saw it coming.

“Sen. Natasha has not only rubbished the perception of the state; from the events happening now in Nigeria, she has also embarrassed the entire country.”

He described the situation in the Senate as an embarrassment to Kogi and Nigeria, blaming Akpoti-Uduaghan for disregarding advice from colleagues.

He lamented that, despite sincere appeals and advice, which he said fell on deaf ears, it was unfortunate that the needless embarrassment could still be brought to the state and the nation at large.

The National Assembly has been embroiled in a controversy following allegations of sexual harassment against Akpabio by Akpoti-Uduaghan.

Akpoti-Uduaghan was later suspended for refusing to adhere to Senate rules.

All rights reserved. This material, and other digital content on this website, may not be reproduced, published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed in whole or in part without prior express written permission from TheNigerian.

Contact: [email protected]

The Federal High Court in Abuja has adjourned the money laundering case against former Kogi State Governor, Yahaya Bello, to March 6 and 7, 2025.

The case, filed by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission, continued on Monday with testimonies from two prosecution witnesses.

The first witness, Segun Adeleke, General Manager of Efab Properties Limited, testified about properties in Maitama and Gwarinpa.

Adeleke stated that Bello’s name did not appear on any documents and that he had never met the former governor.

“My Lord, in 2020, while I was in the office, my chairman sent for me. His name is Chief Dr Fabian Nwora. He introduced me to a young man named Shehu Bello. Apparently, they had discussed purchasing a property, and my chairman told me that Shehu wanted to make payment.

“We agreed on ₦550 million for the property at Number 1, Ikogosi Road, Maitama. When Shehu returned, he came with U.S. dollars. My Lord, we had to confirm the exchange rate from a Bureau de Change, and the equivalent of ₦550 million was paid,” he added.

Adeleke said he met Shehu Bello three times — during the introduction, payment, and when legal documents were executed.
When asked if he knew the bank used for the ₦550 million payment, he said, “No, my Lord.” He also could not recall the dollar equivalent of the amount.

When questioned about another property in Gwarinpa, he said, “House Twelve, 59 Crescent, Fifth Avenue, Gwarinpa, was purchased by one Nuhu Mohammed for seventy million. My Lord, it was a one-off payment via bank transfer to our account.”

The defence counsel, Joseph Daudu, asked Adeleke if he personally discussed the transactions with Shehu Bello, to which he replied, “Yes.”
When asked if Shehu signed the documents in his presence, he said, “He did not, my Lord.”

Daudu also asked, “Throughout this transaction, did you set eyes on the defendant?”

Adeleke responded, “Not at any time in the course of this transaction.” He confirmed that Bello’s name did not appear on any documents submitted to the EFCC.

The second prosecution witness, Williams Abimbola, a compliance officer with United Bank for Africa, testified under subpoena.

EFCC’s counsel, Kemi Pinheiro, said the subpoena was issued to obtain four sets of documents, including account statements.

Abimbola submitted account opening documents and statements, including the Kogi State Government House account from January 1, 2016, to January 31, 2024.

Other statements included those of Macelina Njoku from 1 January 1, 2022, to December 31, 2022, and the American International School, Abuja, from September 1 to September 30, 2020.

All documents were admitted as evidence without objection.
The court adjourned the case to March 6 and 7, 2025 for further hearing.

The Economic and Financial Crimes Commission, on Wednesday, called its first witness to give testimony in the N110.4bn fraud trial of the immediate past governor of Kogi State, Yahaya Bello.

The first witness, Fabian Nwora, an estate developer, narrated to the court how the EFCC made his firm, Efab Property Nigeria Limited, return N550 allegedly paid by one Shehu Bello for a property in Maitama, Abuja in 2020.

The EFCC arraigned ex-governor Bello on 16 counts bordering on money laundering, breach of trust and misappropriation of public funds brought against him by the EFCC.

When the matter was called on Wednesday,  EFCC’s counsel, Kemi Pinheiro (SAN), told Justice Maryanne Anenih he was ready to open his case, following which the estate developer was invited into the witness box.

Though the defence counsel mounted an objection, Justice Anenih overruled them, paving the way for the witness to testify.

Giving his testimony, Nwora narrated: “I am a businessman into the property business. The name of the company is Efab Property Nigeria Limited. I am the Chairman of Efab Property. I was invited by the EFCC in February 2023. I made a written statement to EFCC on February 8, 2024.

“I was invited to EFCC for a transaction that happened between Efab Property and one Shehu Bello, regarding a property at Maitama that belonged to Efab, situated at No 1, Ikogosi Street.

“What transpired between Efab and Shehu Bello was that we put a property up for sale at Maitama and in 2020, Shehu Bello came to my office and asked for the property. We discussed the price of the property and both agreed at N550m. He negotiated from N570m to N550m.”

Nwora said that he sold the property to Shehu Bello but observed that the name on the sale agreement was Dr. Bello Ohianyi, instead of  Shehu Bello.

He stated that after three years, Shehu approached Efab Property, informing them that the property was under investigation by the EFCC and he wanted to return the property.

He said Shehu returned all documents relating to the purchase and demanded a refund of the N550m that was paid.

The witness said the EFCC, however, shortly after invited Efab Property to explain what transpired between them and Shehu Bello.

He said, “The EFCC invited me, I made a statement on what happened between Efab Property and Shehu Bello. After writing the statement with the EFCC, the EFCC said the house was under investigation and we should return the entire money to the EFCC account. They gave us the account number to pay into. We firstly returned N400m and in the second batch we returned N150m.”

Nwora said after then, he had no contact with Shehu Bello or Dr. Bello Ohianyi until December 2024, when the EFCC summoned him to court to testify as a witness in the case related to his transaction with Shehu Bello at the Federal High Court.

The prosecution tendered the property’s sale agreement and other documents, which the court admitted in evidence and marked as exhibits in the case.

Earlier, J.B Daudu (SAN), the lead counsel for  Yahaya Bello and his co-defendant, Shuiabu Oricha, contended that the prosecution did not provide the defence with the witness’ statement on oath.

He insisted that the witness should not testify because the defence had no prior knowledge of the witness’ testimony, describing the situation as a “hide and seek” game.

“How can I cross-examine a witness when I have not seen the statement on oath? How do I prepare for what questions to ask? Now I have to take an adjournment to prepare me for what questions to write,” Daudu said.

The counsel for the third defendant,  M.A. Aliyu, canvassed a similar argument.

The prosecution counsel, however, said he had frontloaded the witness’ statement.

Pinheiro said, “My Lord, we have frontloaded the names. This is a criminal trial, where the burden to proof is on the prosecution.”

In his ruling, the judge agreed with Pinheiro, paving the way for the witness to testify.

The judge later adjourned further proceedings till April 3.