By Miriam Humbe
The First Prosecution Witness, PW1, Sulaiman Kwalla, in the trial of Bishop Katung Jonas and Okewole Dayo, chairman and secretary of Covenant Fadama Multi-purpose Cooperative Society, Jos, Plateau State, respectively, on Tuesday, July 22, 2025, told Justice Sharon T. Ishaya of the Federal High Court, sitting in Jos, that many of the victims of the alleged fraudulent cooperative society, including him and his wife were lured into investing their resources in the venture by the church sermons and religious influence of Bishop Jonas.
Dele Oyewale, the EFCC’s Spokesperson disclosed this in a statement signed on Tuesday.
The Economic and Financial Crimes Commission, EFCC is prosecuting Bishop Jonas and Dayo, first and second defendants, respectively on 23-count charge, bordering on obtaining money under false pretence to the tune of N178,885,000 (One Hundred and Seventy-eight Million, Eight Hundred and Eighty-five Thousand Naira).
Led in his testimony by prosecution counsel, Ibrahim Buba, the witness recalled that he invested ₦200,000 (Two Hundred Thousand Naira) and additional N100,000 (One Hundred Thousand) on behalf of his wife, Halima Ibrahim Danyaro, after watching advertisements of the cooperative society on Plateau Radio Television Corporation (PRTV).
According to him, the adverts were mostly aired after Bishop Katung’s televised sermons, in which he would usually urge viewers to invest in the cooperative society.
“Based on the Bishop’s religious standing and the promise of a 10 percent monthly return, I was convinced it was a genuine investment. I filled a form and was directed to pay into Dadin Kowa Microfinance Bank, said to be owned by the cooperative. I was issued official receipts for both payments,” he said.
He, however, revealed that by the end of the first month, neither he, his wife, nor any of the subscribers received the promised dividend.
He further disclosed that he visited the cooperative society’s office on Secretariat Road, Jos, only to meet a large crowd of other disappointed investors on June 4, 2012, demanding a refund of their money.
The situation nearly spiraled out of control, prompting armed policemen to evacuate Dayo, the second defendant to safety.
Dayo, he said, was later detained at the Plateau State Police Headquarters following the incident.
Further in his testimony, the witness said that a meeting was subsequently held between the police, the investors and Bishop Katung during which the man of God admitted being the chairman of the cooperative society and agreed to a repayment plan beginning from July 2012, which he said, the preacher didn’t fulfil.
“At every turn, there were new excuses. Eventually, Bishop Katung introduced Lanre Global Concept, a consultancy firm he claimed would help recover our funds from abroad.
“We refused, as we had no prior dealings with the firm. Later, he introduced another scheme, Global View, where he admitted to have channeled funds from the cooperative society into forex trading. All these promises turned out to be fraudulent,” the witness said.
He further disclosed that after several failed repayment attempts, the investors, through their lawyer, Solomon Dalung, petitioned the EFCC, alleging fraud of over ₦8 billion and affecting no less than 44,000 investors.
He stated that while his ₦200,000 investment was eventually refunded through an official of the cooperative society, his wife’s ₦100,000 is still stuck with the defendants.
The attempt by the prosecution counsel to tender the receipts of the payments made by the witness and his wife as well as the petition written on behalf of the investors after they have been duly identified by the witness, was thwarted by C.I. Nwogbo and G.G. Achi, counsel for the first and second defendants, respectively, who argued that the receipt in the name of the witness’s wife, Halima Ibrahim Danyaro cannot be tendered since she was not the one testifying and was not available in Court.
The petition to the EFCC, they further argued, was inadmissible on the ground that it lacked certification, in line with Section 104 of the Evidence Act and the Administration of Criminal Justice Act (ACJA).
The prosecution counsel, however, contended that the witness had laid sufficient foundation to show that his wife was a victim and that the receipt was the cooperative society’s evidence of her payment.
“The Court should note that the receipt was issued by the cooperative society. It is relevant to the charge of obtaining money under false pretence. Relevancy is the bedrock of admissibility,” he said.
He further submitted that the petition addressed to the EFCC was in its original form and, therefore, did not require certification, noting that certification was only necessary for reproduced copies and not originals.
Justice Ishaya, thereafter, adjourned the matter to Wednesday, July 23, 2025, for ruling on the admissibility of the documents and continuation of trial.
