ABUJA, Nigeria—Justice Emeka Nwite of the Federal High Court in Maitama adjourned proceedings Tuesday to rule on the admissibility of a Deed of Assignment and an Irrevocable Power of Attorney tendered by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission in the ongoing trial of former Kogi State Gov. Yahaya Bello, March 9, 2026.

The judge fixed the date after hearing arguments from prosecution and defense counsel over whether the disputed documents relating to the alleged ₦100 million sale of Plot 1160, Cadastral Zone, Gwarimpa 2, Abuja, can be admitted in evidence.

Bello is facing a 19-count charge bordering on alleged money laundering totaling ₦80,246,470,088.88.

The controversy arose when prosecution counsel Chukwudi Enebeli, SAN, sought to tender the documents through PW10, Mahmoud Abdulaziz, chief accountant of Dantata & Sawoe Construction Ltd.

Tinubu To Swear In Disu As Substantive IGP Today

Abdulaziz testified that the company sold the 8,240.72-square-meter property to Azba Real Estate Ltd. for ₦100 million. He said the payment was made in tranches: ₦70 million on Feb. 17, 2021; ₦10 million on Feb. 19, 2021; and ₦20 million on Feb. 22, 2021.

The funds were allegedly transferred electronically into the company’s Keystone Bank account by Maigari Murtala.

He told the court that the Deed of Assignment was executed between Dantata & Sawoe and Azba Real Estate Ltd., while the Irrevocable Power of Attorney was executed between Mubarak Dantata and Ali Bello.

Defense counsel J.B. Daudu, SAN, objected to the admissibility of the documents on three grounds.

“My lord, the first document is an irrevocable power of attorney, and the second is a deed of assignment in respect of the same land. These are registrable instruments relating to title and ought to have been registered,” Daudu argued.

He maintained that only certified true copies from the appropriate land registry would be admissible and contended that the EFCC was not the custodian of land documents.

“On these three grounds, my lord, these documents are inadmissible,” he said, citing Section 114 of the Evidence Act.

Prosecution counsel Kemi Pinheiro, SAN, described the objection as a misconception of the law.

“The evidence of the witness is unambiguous. He has led oral evidence of the transaction and receipt of money. These documents are being tendered to anchor that oral evidence,” Pinheiro said.

He stressed that the case is a criminal prosecution for money laundering, not a civil dispute over land title.

“This is about financial crimes and the flow of funds. We are not tendering these documents to prove title or ownership. This court does not have jurisdiction to determine title to land,” he argued.

Pinheiro further submitted that once a private document is submitted to a public officer during an investigation, it becomes a public document in custody and may be certified, citing Audu v. FRN (2025).

Earlier, the defense informed the court of a pending application seeking leave to vacate an earlier order granting Bello permission to travel for lesser Hajj. Daudu said both parties were in discussions and requested time to report on whether the application would still be necessary.

Pinheiro confirmed discussions had taken place and said the prosecution would respond to issues relating to a Red Notice, adding that “all the airports in the Middle East are closed.”

During cross-examination of PW8, an FCMB official, the witness confirmed a ₦100 million inflow on Dec. 15 from Keyless Nature Ltd. but said he could not determine the purpose of the transfer.

He also confirmed a ₦400 million RTGS inflow on Dec. 17, 2021, and a ₦600 million inflow from Ejadams on Feb. 18, 2022, but said he had no knowledge of the business relationships behind the transactions.

PW9, a Polaris Bank compliance officer, testified that multiple ₦10 million inflows into JIT Ltd.’s account on Nov. 23 and 24, 2021, totaled ₦150 million. She also identified 10 credit entries into SSP Foods Ltd.’s account on Nov. 24, 2021, amounting to ₦250 million.

Under cross-examination, she said she was neither the account officer nor relationship manager and did not know the purpose of the transactions.

The court is expected to rule on the admissibility of the disputed documents and proceed with further hearings when the trial resumes March 9, 2026.