Justice Emeka Nwite of the Federal High Court, Maitama, Abuja, on Tuesday, March 9, 2026 adjourned to rule on the admissibility of a Deed of Assignment and an Irrevocable Power of Attorney tendered by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission, EFCC, in the ongoing trial of former Kogi State Governor, Yahaya Adoza Bello.
The judge fixed the date after listening to extensive arguments from counsel over the admissibility of the two documents relating to the sale of Plot 1160, Cadastral Zone, Gwarimpa 2, Abuja, allegedly sold for ₦100 million.
Bello is being prosecuted by the EFCC on a 19-count charge bordering on alleged money laundering to the tune of ₦80,246,470,088.88.
The controversy arose when prosecution counsel, Chukwudi Enebeli, SAN, sought to tender the Deed of Assignment and an Irrevocable Power of Attorney through PW10, Mahmoud Abdulaziz, Chief Accountant of Dantata & Sawoe Construction Limited.
Abdulaziz had testified that the company sold the property measuring 8,240.72 square metres to Azba Real Estate Limited for ₦100 million, paid in tranches of ₦70 million on February 17, 2021, ₦10 million on February 19, and ₦20 million on February 22, 2021, via electronic transfers into the company’s Keystone Bank account.
He stated that Maigari Murtala made the transfers, while the Deed of Assignment was executed between Dantata & Sawoe and Azba Real Estate Limited, signed by Mubarak Dantata, Nasiru Dantata and Ali Bello. He further told the court that an Irrevocable Power of Attorney was executed between Mubarak Dantata and Ali Bello, and that the documents were submitted to the EFCC during investigation.
However, defence counsel, J.B. Daudu, SAN, objected to their admissibility on three grounds.
“My lord, the first document is an irrevocable power of attorney and the second is a deed of assignment in respect of the same land. These are registrable instruments relating to title and ought to have been registered,” he said.
He submitted that only Certified True Copies, CTC, from the appropriate land registry would be admissible, contending that the EFCC was not the custodian of land documents and that the purported certification by an EFCC official was contrary to Section 114 of the Evidence Act.
“On these three grounds, my lord, these documents are inadmissible,” Daudu maintained.
Responding, Kemi Pinheiro SAN, described the objection as a misconception of the law.
“The evidence of the witness is unambiguous. He has led oral evidence of the transaction and receipt of money. These documents are being tendered to anchor that oral evidence,” he said.
He stressed that the case was a criminal prosecution for money laundering and not a civil dispute over land title.
“This is about financial crimes and the flow of funds. We are not tendering these documents to prove title or ownership. This court does not have jurisdiction to determine title to land,” he argued.
Pinheiro further submitted that a document inadmissible for one purpose may be admissible for another, and that once a private document is submitted to a public officer during investigation, it becomes a public document in custody and may be certified.
Citing Audu v. FRN (2025) 5 NWLR (Pt. 1984) 61, he contended that the Supreme Court had settled the issue.
In reply, Daudu insisted that no specific purpose had been clearly stated for the tendering of the documents other than to juxtapose the names of the payer and the signatory.
“Even if it is to be admitted as receipt, there must be a consideration clause; otherwise, it is inadmissible,” he argued.
Pinheiro countered that the Deed of Assignment contained a consideration clause and urged the court to admit both documents.
After hearing both sides, Justice Nwite adjourned till March 9, 2026, for ruling on their admissibility and continuation of trial.
Leave a Reply