The ongoing prosecution of former Kogi State Governor Yahaya Bello over an alleged ₦110.4 billion fraud has brought fresh attention to the movement of large sums of money through bank accounts, companies and foreign-exchange transactions. Testimony from a bureau de change operator has now placed ₦1.425 billion in transactions under scrutiny, raising questions about the financial channels through which funds allegedly connected to the case were moved.
At the Federal Capital Territory High Court in Maitama, Abuja, on Thursday, October 15, 2026, prosecution witness Jamilu Abdullahi, identified as Prosecution Witness 19, told Justice Maryanne Anineh that transactions amounting to ₦1.425 billion were carried out for foreign-exchange purchases between December 15 and February 21, 2022.
Abdullahi, a bureau de change operator, said he received naira payments associated with Abba Adaudu, used the funds to purchase foreign currencies, and delivered the converted money to Adaudu. He maintained that the transactions were legitimate foreign-exchange dealings rather than gifts.
The testimony is significant because it provides the court with an account of how substantial sums passed through personal and corporate accounts. However, the witness's evidence, as presented, does not by itself establish that every transaction was proceeds of crime or prove Yahaya Bello's personal involvement in the specific transfers described.
The money trail through personal and corporate accounts
While being led in evidence by prosecution counsel Kemi Pinheiro, SAN, Abdullahi identified financial records covering transactions between July 2021 and April 2022.
He confirmed that cash lodgements of ₦10 million each were made by Adaudu through a bank branch in Lokoja. According to the witness, these payments were intended to finance the purchase of United States dollars.
He also identified a January 18, 2022 transfer from Keyless Limited, which he said belonged to Adaudu, and maintained that the money was for foreign exchange.
The testimony became more complicated when the witness was questioned about other cash deposits recorded in his name at the Lokoja branch. Abdullahi denied personally making deposits of ₦9 million, ₦8 million and another ₦8 million on February 22, 2022. He said he had never visited the branch and explained that his name could appear as the beneficiary of transactions initiated by other people.
He gave a similar explanation for deposits recorded on March 10 and 11, 2022. According to him, the names appearing in transaction descriptions depended on the instructions provided by Adaudu.
These details make the underlying bank records particularly important. Investigators and the court must distinguish between the person who physically deposited cash, the account holder who received it, the person who supplied the money and the ultimate recipient of the foreign currency. Those roles are not necessarily held by the same individual.
Transfers involving companies and large sums
Abdullahi also identified his personal Access Bank account at the Aminu Kano branch in Abuja. He confirmed entries showing ₦10 million cash lodgements on December 29 and 30, 2021, and January 1 and 31, 2022, but said the payments were made by Adaudu to facilitate foreign-exchange transactions.
He testified that he sometimes delivered the purchased dollars at his own office and, on other occasions, at Adaudu's office in Area 8, Garki, Abuja.
The evidence also covered transactions involving Kunfayakun Global Limited, which Abdullahi identified as his company.
He confirmed receiving ₦100 million from Keyless Nature Limited through FCMB's Zone 4 branch in 2021, attributing the transfer to Adaudu. He also identified a ₦400 million transfer through Keyless Nature Limited and said it was connected to Adaudu.
In addition, the witness described transfers of ₦100 million each from Ejadams Essence Limited on February 18, 2022, amounting to ₦600 million. He said the company belonged to Adaudu.
Taken together, the testimony places significant financial transactions and several corporate entities before the court. Their importance lies not merely in the amounts involved but in whether the prosecution can establish the origin of the funds, the purpose of each transfer and any connection between those transactions and the alleged offences.
The critical question: where did the money originate?
Foreign-exchange transactions are not inherently unlawful. Bureau de change operators routinely receive naira and supply foreign currencies to customers. The legal question in a criminal prosecution is whether particular transactions involved unlawfully obtained funds, formed part of a prohibited arrangement or were otherwise connected to the alleged offences.
That distinction matters in a case of this magnitude. The prosecution must establish the relevant links with evidence, rather than relying solely on the size of the transactions or the number of accounts involved.
The witness's account raises several questions for examination: What was the source of the naira? Were the transactions supported by records identifying the purchasers and recipients? Can the foreign currencies allegedly supplied be traced to specific payments? What role did each company play? And what evidence, if any, connects the transactions described to the alleged ₦110.4 billion fraud?
Bank statements, deposit slips, transfer instructions, foreign-exchange records, company documents and testimony from other participants may help the court assess those questions.
The witness's explanation that transaction narrations could contain different names also highlights the importance of verifying the underlying records. A name appearing in a transaction description does not, by itself, establish who physically deposited the funds or who ultimately benefited from them.
Why the trial matters beyond the courtroom
Allegations involving public funds raise broader questions about accountability, financial oversight and the ability of investigators to follow complex transactions across multiple accounts and companies.
Where money is alleged to have been diverted from public purposes, the public has a legitimate interest in knowing whether the prosecution can demonstrate a clear chain linking the alleged misconduct to identifiable funds and beneficiaries. Equally, defendants are entitled to have the allegations tested through a fair judicial process.
The scale of the allegations makes transparency especially important. But the amount stated in the overall charge should not be confused with the ₦1.425 billion figure discussed in the witness's testimony. The figures describe different scopes of alleged financial activity, and their precise relationship must be established from the prosecution's case and the court record.
The evidence must determine the outcome
Abdullahi's testimony offers a detailed account of foreign-exchange dealings that he attributed to Adaudu, including cash deposits, transfers through personal accounts and transactions involving corporate entities. He said he supplied the foreign currencies and delivered them to Adaudu.
Those statements form part of the evidence being examined by the court. They are not, on their own, a final determination of criminal liability or proof that the former governor personally directed the transactions described.
The central task for the prosecution is to demonstrate how the financial movements relate to the alleged offences. The defence, in turn, has the opportunity to challenge the evidence and its interpretation.
Ultimately, the case should be judged on the strength of the documentary trail, the credibility of the witnesses and the legal conclusions the court can draw from the evidence.
In a prosecution involving an alleged ₦110.4 billion fraud, the public deserves answers about where the money came from, where it went and whether anyone unlawfully benefited. Those answers must emerge from evidence tested in court—not from the size of the figures alone or assumptions about the people named in the proceedings.
Comments
Post a Comment