The courtroom drama took a decisive turn on Wednesday as the Federal High Court in Abuja ruled that the statements made by Ali Bello, Chief of Staff to Kogi Governor Usman Ododo, are admissible in the high-stakes N10 billion money laundering case.
Presiding judge, Justice James Omotosho, swept aside objections raised by co-defendant Dauda Suleiman, ruling that the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) played by the rulebook in obtaining the disputed statements.
“Consequently, the statements of the defendants are admissible in evidence as they were made voluntarily,” the judge ruled.
The decision effectively shut the door on the defendants’ claims that the statements were wrung out of them under pressure. Bello and Suleiman had earlier argued that the extra-judicial confessions were extracted under duress, but the court found their claims riddled with holes.
The case, which centres on the alleged laundering of N10 billion belonging to Kogi State, traces its origins to the tenure of former Governor Yahaya Bello, who is also facing separate money-laundering charges.
In a legal tug-of-war that saw both sides dig in their heels, defence counsels Abubakar Aliyu, SAN, and Olusegun Jolaawo, SAN, had fiercely opposed the EFCC’s move to tender eight statements as exhibits. They insisted their clients were coerced, with Suleiman even alleging threats involving an electric chair.
But that argument appeared to crumble under cross-examination, as Suleiman admitted he never actually saw such a device during the statement-taking process.
Justice Omotosho noted that EFCC witnesses denied any intimidation and pointed out a critical missing link in the defence’s case—the failure to call their own lawyer, Z.E. Abbas, who was present when the statements were made.
“Now, the said Z.E Abbas Esq. is a known person and has appeared for the defendants in this matter.
“For the defendants to succeed on their claims that the statements were not made voluntarily, they ought to call Z.E Abbas Esq. to testify.
“The defendants failed to call Z.E Abbas Esq. This failure raises the presumption that the evidence of Z.E Abbas would have been against their interest if they had called him.
“This omission by the defendants raises a presumption of withholding evidence under Section 167 of the Evidence Act, 2011.
“Apart from being a case of withholding evidence, the defendants’ failure to call their counsel, Z.E Abbas Esq., is an admission of the evidence of the prosecution that the statements were obtained voluntarily.
“The 2nd defendant even testified to the credibility of Z.E Abbas Esq., stating that he is a truthful person and that he agrees with whatever he says,” the judge said.
Like a house built on sand, the defence’s argument faltered further as the court observed that the statements were not confessional in nature. The defendants, rather than owning up to the allegations, used phrases such as “I don’t know” and “I can’t recall,” weakening any claim of forced admission.
“This court finds it hard to believe that the EFCC officers threatening the 1st defendant to make favourable statements would allow him use such words.
“Those words essentially change the nature of those statements to ‘non-confessional’ statements as they were not direct and unequivocal about admitting the allegations against him,” the judge said.
The court also dismissed arguments that the statements failed to meet the requirements of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act (ACJA), 2015, particularly regarding video recording.
“A closer look at the provisions of Section 15(4) and 17(2) show that these provisions only apply where the statement is a confessional statement.
“This means that it would not apply to all manner of statements but the ones that are confessional in nature.
“As held earlier, the statements themselves are not confessional in nature as the defendants did not admit to the commission of the offences alleged against them.
“The defendants in their statements used words like ‘I can’t recall’ and ‘I don’t know.’
“These words or phrases imply that they do not admit to the allegations.
“A statement needs to be direct, unequivocal and must be an admission for it to be confessional in nature.
“This is the whole essence and meaning of confession under Section 28 of the Evidence Act, 2011.
“These statements, being non-confessional, do not fall within the purview of Sections 15(4) and 17(2) of the ACJA, 2015.
“Consequently, this court will not subject the statements through those provisions.
“In final analysis, the statements of the defendants are admissible in evidence as they were made voluntarily and are non-confessional statements to be subject to the provisions of ACJA, 2015,” he ruled.
In the final stroke of his gavel, Justice Omotosho admitted Bello’s six statements as “Exhibits R to R5,” while Suleiman’s two statements were marked “Exhibits S and S1.”
The matter was adjourned to April 21 and 24 for the prosecution to wrap up its case, with the judge warning that the EFCC must come fully armed with its witnesses—or risk having its case shut like a door in the wind.
