N110.4BN FRAUD: WITNESS DETAILS MASSIVE CASH WITHDRAWALS FROM KOGI GOVT ACCOUNT

Read Time:1 Minute, 54 Second

BY MUNIRAT BALOGUN

The Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) on Wednesday presented more evidence in its ongoing N110.4 billion fraud case against former Kogi State governor Yahaya Bello, as a bank official detailed how funds were allegedly siphoned from the state government’s coffers through repeated cash withdrawals.

A witness, Abimbola Williams, a compliance officer with United Bank for Africa (UBA), told the Federal Capital Territory (FCT) High Court in Abuja how large sums were withdrawn in tranches from the Kogi government account between 2018 and 2019.

Williams, who appeared as the third prosecution witness (PW3) before Justice Maryanne Anineh, testified that multiple cheques were issued in favour of Abdulsalam Gudu, resulting in huge withdrawals from the state’s account.

Led in evidence by EFCC counsel Kemi Pinheiro, SAN, she said:

“On 12 December 2018, there were 10 cheque withdrawals of N10 million each, totalling N100 million.
Between January and August 2019, similar withdrawals continued — including 64 transactions of N10 million each within just seven days, amounting to N640 million.”

Williams told the court that the transactions were contained in 251 pages of UBA bank statements tendered as evidence.

Bello is standing trial alongside Umar Shuaibu Oricha and Abdulsalami Hudu on a 16-count charge bordering on criminal breach of trust and money laundering filed by the EFCC.

The fourth prosecution witness (PW4), Jesutomi Akonni, a compliance officer with Ecobank, also testified on the account statement of Moses Wanzo, marked Exhibit H.

Akonni said several deposits were made into Wanzo’s account, including N15 million by Abdulwahab Sabo on 22 February 2016, N20 million by Shehu Bello on 21 March 2016, and another N19 million on 30 March 2016.

During the proceedings, counsel to the first defendant, J.B. Dauda, SAN, noted that the prosecution planned to call 16 witnesses in total but urged the court to first rule on a pending application challenging its jurisdiction, filed by the defence on September 26, 2025.

In response, Pinheiro dismissed the move as a delay tactic, insisting the defence was attempting to stall the trial.

“It is self-serving for the defence to suddenly raise the issue of jurisdiction at this stage,” he said.

Justice Anineh adjourned the matter till Thursday, October 9, 2025, for continuation of trial.