By Miriam Humbe
Justice Emeka Nwite of the Federal High Court in Maitama, Abuja, on Friday, March 7, 2025 heard further testimony from prosecution witness Nicholas Ojehomon, an internal auditor at the American International School Abuja, AISA, in the ongoing trial of a former Kogi State Governor, Yahaya Bello.
Dele Oyewale, EFCC’s Head of Media and Publicity disclosed this in a statement signed on Friday.
Ojehomon testified that all payments made for school fees at AISA, including those from international companies, were exclusively for the benefit of Bello’s children.
Led in evidence by prosecution counsel, Kemi Pinheiro, SAN, Ojehomon detailed a series of payments, referencing several exhibits that documented the transactions.
He confirmed that multiple payments were made in favour of Bello’s children, Zara Omoneke Bello, Fatima Bello, Na’ima Ohunene Bello, and Farid Bello through different companies.
Pinheiro directed the witness to exhibit 13p1 and asked him to identify the document.
Ojehomon responded: “It is a bank teller sent to AISA via email from Ali Bello.”
When asked to read the name of the sender from the document, he stated: “It was sent in by Forza Oil and Gas, and the recipient is AISA.”
The prosecution counsel then inquired about the amount indicated on the teller.
“The amount is $49,600,” Ojehomon confirmed.
“Is there anywhere on that document indicating for whose benefit the money was sent?” Pinheiro asked.
“Yes,” the witness responded, “Zara Omoneke Bello.”
Similar patterns emerged as Ojehomon reviewed additional exhibits:
Exhibit 13p2: $44,700 was sent by Forza Oil and Gas to AISA for Fatima Bello, exhibit 13p3: $49,600 from Forza Oil and Gas to AISA for Zara Bello, exhibit 13p4: $44,700 from Forza Oil and Gas to AISA for Fatima Bello Oziohu, exhibit 13p5: $11,000 from Whales Oil and Gas to AISA with “Farid Oricha” listed under the contract number, exhibit 13p6: $78,160 from Alyeshua Provision Services to AISA, benefiting Fatima Ohizio Bello, exhibit 13p7: $42,170 from Alyeshua Provision Services to AISA for Na’ima Ohunene Bello.
Others are; exhibit 13p8: $44,700 from Forza Oil and Gas to AISA for Na’ima Ohunene Bello, exhibit 13p9: $75,000 from Unnaki General Trading Limited to AISA for Na’ima, exhibit 13p10: $75,000 from Unnaki General Trading Limited to AISA, with “Farid Edu Support” listed under the beneficiary.
Exhibit 13p11: $75,000 from Unnaki General Trading plc to AISA for Fatima, with “Invoice Reference: Fatima Edu Support, exhibit 13p12: $75,000 from Unnaki General Trading Limited to AISA, with “Invoice Reference: Zara Edu Support, exhibit 13p13: A $100,000 transfer from Manzi Issa, a Ugandan national. Exhibit 13p14: A $90,000 transfer from Dada Grant Merchant Limited, also based in Uganda.
The prosecution also presented exhibit 14p15-63, a series of receipts issued by AISA.
When asked to confirm the names on the receipts, Ojehomon stated, “The receipts were all issued in the names of the four children of Yahaya Bello.”
He went on to name them in exhibit 14p-16 as: Bello Nana, Fatima Zara Bello, Farid Bello, and Na’ima Bello.
When asked to identify the parent of the named individuals from AISA’s records, Ojehomon confirmed, “From the record of AISA, the parent of the names mentioned is Yahaya Bello.”
Further, Pinheiro asked, “Please confirm to the court that none of the receipts from exhibit 13p16-53 were issued in favour of Forza Oil and Gas, Whales Oil and Gas, Alyeshua Solutions Services, Unnaki General Trading Limited, Dada Grant Merchant Limited of Kampala, or Manzi Issa of Uganda.”
The witness responded, “I hereby confirm that none of the receipts issued by AISA were in favour of any of the names mentioned.”
During cross-examination, defence counsel J.B. Daudu, SAN, attempted to tender certified true copies of receipts and rectification documents from a separate suit before the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory (Suit No. FCT/HC/CB/2574/2023, between Ali Bello and the Incorporated Trustees of the American International School).
Daudu sought to introduce these documents as evidence.
However, prosecution counsel Pinheiro objected, arguing that “this is a criminal trial, and the prosecution is still leading its case.”
He cited Section 232 of the Evidence Act, stating that “the only nature of evidence that can be tendered at cross-examination is a previous statement in writing by the witness for the purpose of contradicting his current testimony.”
Pinheiro emphasized that “a party cannot be tendering documents from the bar at this stage; they must wait until their turn to prove their case.”
In response, Daudu insisted that the documents were relevant under Section 4 of the Evidence Act, arguing that “the prosecution itself has acknowledged their relevance.”
He maintained that “the document is a public document and should be admitted.”
After hearing both arguments, Justice Emeka Nwite ruled that a decision on the admissibility of the documents would be made at the next hearing.
The trial was adjourned to May 8 and 9, 2025, for further proceedings.
