Alleged KWSUBEB Fund Diversion: Witnesses’ absence stalls proceedings in Ex-Gov Ahmed’s case
* Case adjourned to Nov 9
Stephen Olufemi Oni, Ilorin
Not much could be achieved on Monday at the Kwara State High Court sitting in Ilorin in the criminal proceeding involving former Governor Abdulfatah Ahmed and his former Commissioner for Finance, Ademola Banu, following the absence of the next witnesses of the prosecution.
Ahmed and Banuu are being prosecuted for alleged diversion of over N5.78 billion fund of the State Universal Basic Education Board (SUBEB) for payment of salary of the state civil servants.
After the briefly-done rounding off of cross examination of a prosecution witness, Stanley Ujilibo, whose cross examination in the last sitting continued on Monday, the prosecution counsel, Adebisi Adeniyi, told the could that the next witnesses were unavoidably absent and, therefore, requested for an adjournment to another date with the assurance that the witnesses would be present at that time.
However, before the request for adjournment, Ujilibo, while being cross-examined by Kamaldeen Ajibade (SAN), the lead counsel to the first defendant, Ahmed, told the court he would not know if one Ayoola Idowu, a civil servant that petitioned the EFCC about the alleged diversion benefited from the fund as salary payment to him.
Ajibade had asked him wether Idowu as a civil servant benefitted from the fund when it was allegedly used to pay salary of the civil servants.
Also, the witness when being cross-examined by Gboyega Oyewole (SAN), the counsel for the second defendant, Banu, could not point out a document that shows that the second defendant as the Commissioner for Finance wrote for borrowing money from the SUBEB fund.
When he was asked to go through the exhibits before the court, he pointed out a letter written by the second defendant to the first defendant requesting that the state should pay its counterpart fund to the SUBEB fund.
When the second defendant’s counsel said the letter did not talk about borrowing but payment of fund, the witness pointed out another letter from the exhibit which talked about borrowing but which was signed by someone else, and not the second defendant.
The request of the prosecution counsel for adjournment was not opposed by the counsel for the first and second defendants, making the court to adjourn the proceeding to November 9, 2026.
