The Federal High Court sitting in Abuja has fixed June 26, 2025, to rule on a controversial application by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission, EFCC, seeking to cross-examine its own prosecution witness in the ongoing corruption trial of former Kogi State Governor, Yahaya Bello.
Justice Emeka Nwite set the date after hearing arguments from both EFCC counsel Olukayode Enitan, SAN, and defence counsel Joseph Daudu, SAN, during a heated legal exchange over the procedural legality of the EFCC’s request.
The development followed the conclusion of cross-examination of the third prosecution witness (PW-3), Mr. Nicholas Ojehomon—an internal auditor with the American International School, Abuja (AISA)—by the defence team. Ojehomon had testified regarding school fees allegedly paid by the Bello family.
During cross-examination, Daudu introduced a judgment from the Federal Capital Territory High Court (marked as Exhibit 19) in which it was noted that no order had been made for the return of funds to the EFCC, nor was there a declaration that such payments were proceeds of money laundering.
Following this, Enitan sought to further question the witness—not in re-examination but under cross-examination—arguing that the defence had brought new evidence and that fair hearing demanded the EFCC be allowed to do the same.
“I am not re-examining him; I am cross-examining him based on the document they brought,” Enitan told the court.
However, Daudu strongly objected, saying the EFCC could not cross-examine its own witness unless the court declared the witness “hostile,” as required by the Evidence Act. “You cannot cross-examine your own witness unless you declare him hostile. You can only re-examine,” Daudu argued.
READ ALSO: EFCC to call 28 more witnesses in Yahaya Bello trial
Enitan countered by citing Section 36 of the Nigerian Constitution, which guarantees fair hearing. He argued that since the defence used the document during cross-examination, it would be unfair to prevent the prosecution from querying the same evidence.
Justice Nwite asked both parties to address the court on the legal basis of their arguments. Daudu maintained that the procedure being proposed by the EFCC was “strange and unknown to Nigerian law,” and cited previous case law—including Amobi v. Amobi—to support his claim.
Enitan, however, insisted that the Supreme Court ruling in the Amobi case actually allowed re-examination based on a similar exhibit, arguing that preventing the EFCC from doing so now would amount to “blowing hot and cold.”
After hearing both sides, Justice Nwite adjourned the matter to June 26 for ruling. The court also fixed June 27, July 3, and July 4 for continuation of trial.
Earlier during proceedings, Daudu asked Ojehomon if he had testified in other courts on matters relating to the Bello family’s school fee payments to AISA. Ojehomon confirmed he had but could not specify which courts. He clarified that in none of those instances did he make statements adverse to Yahaya Bello.
It would be recalled that on Thursday, Ojehomon told the court that no payments were made by the Kogi State Government or any of its local governments to AISA for Bello’s children’s fees. He also highlighted that the FCT High Court judgment referenced by the defence never ordered a refund of fees nor classified them as illicit funds.
NAN
