The 17th prosecution witness in the ongoing alleged money laundering trial of former Kogi State Governor Yahaya Bello and two others has told the court that the ex-governor was not involved in any of the property transactions before it.
The witness, Shehu Bala, made the assertion on Wednesday while being cross-examined by defence counsel, Paul Daudu (SAN), adding that the second defendant also had no role in the transactions.
He told the court that one Farouk Bello acted as the agent in the deals.
Under cross-examination, however, the witness confirmed he was aware that the title documents — including the deed of assignment and power of attorney — were later returned to Efab Estate by Farouk Bello.
Bala, a commodity trader from Katsina State, had earlier told the court that he was not related to Ali Bello or Farouk Bello, and that he had known Ali Bello through business dealings about 14 years ago.
He said their relationship arose from commodity trading, including the purchase of grains from northern Nigeria.
Counsel for the second and third defendants, A.M. Aliyu (SAN), also asked the witness about the third defendant, but he responded that he did not know him and was not involved in any of the transactions in question.
The witness further stated that by the time the property documents were returned to Efab Estate, Farouk Bello — described as his father’s friend — was already deceased.
When asked whether it was correct that Farouk Bello’s children had sought to collect money from the sale of the property after his death, the witness said someone had approached him with documents indicating an intention to sell the property, though he could not confirm their identity as Farouk Bello’s children.
He added that he subsequently returned the documents to the chairman of Efab Estate.
Bala also testified that another property not marked by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) was one purchased by Farouk Bello.
During further questioning, defence counsel suggested that Ali Bello had inherited the property from his mother, but prosecution counsel Kemi Pinheiro (SAN) objected, arguing that the witness had not given any evidence relating to inheritance.
Defence counsel, however, maintained that he was entitled to lay a proper foundation for his line of questioning and to test the witness within the scope of his testimony.
