By Jumoke Abubakar
The 17th prosecution witness in the alleged money laundering trial involving former Kogi State Governor Yahaya Bello and two others told the court that Bello did not participate in any of the property transactions under investigation.
The witness, Shehu Bala, made the disclosure during cross-examination by defence counsel, Paul Daudu (SAN).
He stated that the second defendant was not involved in the transactions, adding that one Farouk Bello acted as the agent.
Bala said 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.
The witness further clarified that he had no family relationship with Ali Bello or Farouk Bello, whom he mentioned during his earlier testimony.
He also confirmed that he is from Katsina State and not Kogi State.
According to Bala, a commodity trader, he met Ali Bello about 14 years ago through business activities involving the purchase and sale of grains in northern Nigeria.
Under questioning by counsel to the second and third defendants, A.M. Aliyu (SAN), Bala said he did not know the third defendant and confirmed that the individual did not participate in the transactions in question.
The witness told the court that Farouk Bello, whom he described as a friend of his father, had died before the title documents were returned to Efab Estate.
Responding to questions from the defence, Bala said an individual approached him with documents relating to the property and expressed interest in selling it.
However, he could not confirm whether the person was Farouk Bello’s son.
He added that he subsequently returned the documents to the chairman of Efab Estate.
Bala also testified that a second property not marked by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) was purchased by Farouk Bello.
During proceedings, defence counsel sought to establish whether Ali Bello inherited the property from his mother.
However, prosecution counsel, Kemi Pinheiro (SAN), objected, arguing that the witness had not given evidence relating to inheritance.
The defence maintained that the line of questioning was necessary to lay the foundation for its case, insisting that the witness could respond within the scope of his knowledge.
The trial continues.
