The 13th witness of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission in the ongoing alleged money laundering trial of the immediate past Governor of Kogi State, Yahaya Bello, said, on Wednesday, that he did not transact any property business with the former governor.
The witness, Baba Usman Bappa, an estate surveyor and facility manager, admitted, while being cross-examined by the Defendant’s Counsel, Joseph Daudu, SAN, that he only knew the former governor as a public figure, not in relation to property transaction before the court.
He was told, during his examination-in-chief to tell the court what he knew about a property on Plot 739, Aminu Kano Crescent, Wuse II, Abuja also known as Citi Scape Sharriff Plaza.
“Plot 739 Aminu Kano Crescent is a plaza and Number 13 is a shop in the plaza,” the witness said.
When asked whether he knew Ali Bello, he said he was one of those who came to make enquiries in the plaza and that he indicated interest in one shop adding that after making payment, a shop was allocated to him.
“He paid an initial deposit of N40 million. Later he paid the balance of N26 million naira, including agency fees. A receipt was issued to him and he was allocated Shop B13,” he added.
On cross-examination, he said he had not met Ali Bello before until he came to make the enquiry.
The witness also noted that he had given similar evidence in another court but could not recall which court it was.
Earlier, the 12th prosecution witness, Jamilu Abdullahi, had told the court, during the continuation of his cross-examination, that he could not remember the evidence he gave in a similar matter before Justice Obiora Egwuatu of the Federal High Court.
“Look at Page 32 of your testimony before Justice Egwuatu. The question was put to you that you don’t know the source of the money for the payment of the school fees. And you answered, “No, I don’t know the source,” Daudu SAN said.
The witness confirmed that he had seen what he said on Page 32 of his testimony before Justice Egwuatu.
“Is that your testimony before this court?” the Defendant’s Counsel asked.
“It is a very long time. I cannot remember,” the witness responded.
The witness was then told to look at Exhibit 33(6), Page 1 and confirm that those were the account opening documents for E-Traders International Limited.
He confirmed the documents, adding that the company belonged to him and that he was the sole signatory to the account.
When Exhibit 37 was presented to the witness, he also confirmed being the owner of Kumfayakum Global Limited.
At this point, the prosecution counsel, Kemi Pinheiro, SAN, cut in, saying the question was completely irrelevant.
Justice Nwite, however, told the prosecution counsel that he could not teach the defence how to conduct their own case.
The witness was then taken through Page 72 of Exhibit 37, where the registered line of business was recorded as “sales and supply of office equipment and stationery.”
He was also told to show the court, in Exhibits 33(6) and 37, where it was said, in the account opening package, that the money he would be bringing into the bank would be from Bureau de Change.
The witness said he could not be sure of the genuineness of the document.
“Those parts where you said you carry out general merchandise and sales of stationery and office equipment in the document tendered by the prosecution, do you consider those ones genuine?” Daudu SAN asked.
“No, until I confirm from the CAC,” the witness responded, adding that the handwritten part of the account opening document looked different from his handwriting, which could be confirmed through the statement he made to the EFCC.
“Show us in those two documents where you informed the bank that you are a BDC,” the defence Counsel told the witness.
He said he could not be sure whether he informed the bank or not.
“Is there anything, whether handwritten or typed, in those two exhibits where it is indicated that you run a BDC?” Daudu SAN asked.
“My lord, the documents are bulky, I need time to go and study them,” the witness responded.
When asked whether he was a licensed BDC operator or not, he said, “I am a licensed BDC operator. I am a director and you can confirm that through the CBN.”
He, however, noted that he could not recall when his licence was issued or whether the licence was part of the documents he submitted to the bank.
He confirmed, however, that his BDC licence was not part of the documents before the court.
The 12th witness confirmed that, from the statement before the EFCC, there was nowhere he told the Commission that he was a licensed BDC operator.
He said that could have escaped his mind when he was writing the statement.
Abdullahi denied the claim that he must have left that part out of the statement because he did not want the EFCC to charge him for running an unlicensed BDC.
The defendant’s counsel argued that the witness could not deal with inflows or make transfer to other entities in foreign currency because he was not licensed to operate as a BDC.
“That was why you contracted it out to your friends,” he said.
But the witness said he contracted it out because of the volume of transactions.
“For other smaller transactions that we did that were not beyond my capacity and Nigerian transaction limit, we handled them through the Nigerian bank account,” he stated.
He also confirmed that the three accounts – his personal account, E-Trader, and KumfayaKum – which were before the court, were naira-denominated accounts.
Another witness, Shehu Bello, was called. He said he was a real estate agent and commodity trader.
He recalled that the EFCC had, sometime in 2023, invited him with regard to Ali Bello, whom he described as his friend.
He said he had done business with Ali Bello in the past too – commodity and property business.
On the property on Plot 1773, Guzape District, Abuja, the witness said he bought it for himself and sold it to Ali Bello.
The witness also said one Farouk Bello told him to get two properties that he could buy at the time, in Wuse Zone 4 and Maitama.
He said the owner of the property that was bought by Farouk Bello was Chief Nwora of Efab Properties.
Justice Nwite adjourned the case to May 7, 2026 for continuation of evidence of the 14th witness.
