The 10th prosecution witness in the ongoing alleged money laundering case instituted by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission against the immediate past Governor of Kogi State, Yahaya Bello, has maintained that the former governor’s name is not linked to transactions before the court.
The witness, Mahmoud Abdulazeez, a staff of Dantata and Sawoe Construction Company Limited, had, during his examination-in-chief, identified Exhibit 42 as the Irrevocable Power of Attorney between Dantata and Sawoe and Azab Real Estate Limited.
He also identified Exhibit 43 as a Deed of Assignment between Dantata and Azab Real Estate Limited.
This was after Justice Emeka Nwite admitted the two exhibits after a short ruling on the admissibility of the documents.
During his cross-examination by the Defendant’s Counsel, Joseph Daudu, SAN, the witness said the document, marked as Exhibit 43, did not state the value of the property in question.
Abdulazeez also noted that he had worked as an accountant for over 25 years.
He admitted that, in his years of experience, he had not received documents which did not contain the value of the property being sold.
“In all your 25 years, have you been in receipt of documents which do not contain the value of the property that is being sold?” Daudu SAN asked.
“No, my lord,” the witness responded.
The witness also told the court that, during the perfection of the transaction, the former governor, Yahaya Bello, was not a participant nor did he sight him anywhere near their office.
“Dantata and Sawoe gave consent and assigned Azbar to execute the deed and Azbar gave us these two documents. Our directors signed on behalf of Dantata and Ali Bello signed on behalf of Azbar,” he said.
Earlier, Justice Emeka Nwite had ruled that the documents sought to be tendered by the EFCC, which the Defendant’s Counsel objected to, were admissible.
The Defendant’s Counsel, Joseph Daudu, SAN, had raised objection to the admissibility of two documents – irrevocable power of attorney and deed of assignment.
The judge said the central question was whether the documents sought to be tendered were admissible in accordance with Sections 108, 102 and 104 of the Evidence Act.
He said he agreed with the Defendant’s Counsel that the documents sought to be tendered were public documents in line with Section 102, which must satisfy Section 104 of the Evidence Act, 2011.
He, however, added that the prosecution had argued that the documents sought to be tendered were not for a civil case but a criminal trial.
The Court also agreed with the prosecution that the purpose of tendering the documents was to establish the existence of a transaction and not to prove title to the land or property.
The prosecution counsel then called the 11th witness, James Igbakule, with regard to a property on Plot 1058, Cadastral Zone A08, Wuse 2 District, Abuja.
The witness, a legal practitioner, told the court that the payment for the said property was made in three tranches.
He added that it was one Shehu Bello that contacted him after his client, SFC Foods Limited, approached him to sell the property.