Williams, who testified as the third prosecution witness in the ongoing trial of former Kogi State Governor Yahaya Bello, said the withdrawals were made through 64 cheques of N10 million each by the former Chief Accountant of the Government House, Abdulsalami Hudu, between July 31 and August 6, 2019.
A compliance officer at the United Bank for Africa, Abimbola Williams, told the Federal Capital Territory High Court in Maitama on Wednesday that N640 million was withdrawn from the Kogi State Government account over a period of six days.
Williams, who testified as the third prosecution witness in the ongoing trial of former Kogi State Governor Yahaya Bello, said the withdrawals were made through 64 cheques of N10 million each by the former Chief Accountant of the Government House, Abdulsalami Hudu, between July 31 and August 6, 2019.
Bello, Hudu, and the Director-General of the Kogi Government House Administration, Shaibu Oricha, are facing trial before Justice Maryanne Anenih over alleged N110.4bn fraud brought against them by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission.
Under examination on Wednesday, the EFCC counsel, Pinheiro, had asked the witness, who told the court that she has been with her bank for 19 years, “Do you confirm there are serial transactions involving Abdulsalami Hudu?”
The witness responded in the affirmative, “Yes, my Lord.”
Pinheiro further asked, “Witness, do you see similar consistent transactions, like I said before, with Abdulsalami Hudu?”
The witness confirmed, saying, “Yes.”
The witness proceeded to explain to the court, stating that “between July 31 to August 6, 2019, the total amount of cash withdrawal made in six days by the 3rd defendant (Abdulsalami Hudu) was 64 transactions of 10 million naira each, which is a total withdrawal of 640 million naira.”
During cross-examination by the Defence Counsel, Joseph Daudu, the witness confirmed that she was not meeting the defence counsel for the first time and that she had given similar evidence before the Federal High Court in a suit markha, HC/ABJ/CR/98/2024, between the Federal Republic of Nigeria and Yahaya Adoiza Bello.
While she admitted that she is the Compliance Officer, she added that she is not the Relationship Manager or the Account Officer responsible for the day-to-day management of the account.
She told the court that she understood the duties of a cashier, which include paying and receiving cash. She also admitted that a customer could withdraw money as much as he wished, provided the mandate was correct.
She told the court that, as a Compliance Officer, she could work in any branch she wished, adding that she reported for duty that morning at the Wuse 2 branch of her office in Abuja.
She said, “As a Compliance Officer, my Lord, I am actually allowed to work in any of the branches, so I can change anytime. Today, I reported to 18, Adetokunbo Ademola, Wuse 2, Abuja, this morning.”
Still responding to questions thrown at her by the Defence Counsel, Williams stated that while she was not in a position to know why the withdrawals were made, she added that during transfers, the bank requests the purpose of the transaction and the relationship for high-volume transactions.
She added that the bank does not make such enquiries in the case of cash withdrawals, noting that the banker is not an internal auditor of the customer.
She told the court that one Bello Abdullateef made transfers in tranches from the Government House account on July 5, 2019, but noted, under cross-examination, that her bank did not breach any regulations in allowing the withdrawals or transfers.
She added that there was no withdrawal that went beyond N10 million in all the transactions presented before the court.
The witness listed the authorised signatories on the Kogi Government House account, as at 2004, to include Christopher Enefola, Permanent Secretary; Onekutu Daniel, Chief Accountant; and Hudu Abdulsalami, Accountant (Exhibits F2, Page 37).
She mentioned a letter dated September 2008, with three signatures — Elder P.S. Ocheni, Abbas Ibrahim Abubakar, Chief Accountant; and Abdulsalami Hudu, Senior Accountant.
During cross-examination by Counsel to the 3rd defendant, A.M. Aliyu, the witness was presented with a bank statement (Page 3 of F1, May 27, 2019), where the withdrawals were made.
She admitted that the narration on the credit entry was the Governor’s Security Fund and noted a credit entry of N100 million in two tranches of N50 million each.
“Can you, on oath, tell this court that those funds were not used for security purposes after withdrawal?” the counsel asked.
“My Lord, I am not privy to the details of the transaction and cannot categorically answer that question,” the witness responded.
At the close of the cross-examination of the 3rd prosecution witness, the EFCC called its 4th subpoenaed witness, Jesutoni Akoni, a Compliance Officer with Ecobank, who confirmed that he had a 13-page document before him.
Counsel to the 2nd defendant, A.M. Aliyu, however, objected to the admissibility of the document tendered, saying it did not comply with the provisions of the Evidence Act.
The witness gave a detailed description of the statement of accounts, citing a cash deposit of N3 million by Moses Wanzu.
She cited another cash deposit by Abdulwahab Sabo of N15 million, and another by Shehu Bello of N20 million. She said the total amount of the four transactions was about N57 million.
She told the court she knew the branch in which the account was domiciled through the first three digits of the account number.
https://googleads.g.doubleclick.net/pagead/ads?gdpr=0&client=ca-pub-8963620531447391&output=html&h=280&adk=2880585351&adf=3133409750&pi=t.aa~a.1235499280~i.10~rp.4&w=775&fwrn=4&fwrnh=100&lmt=1759952659&num_ads=1&rafmt=1&armr=3&sem=mc&pwprc=3289763271&ad_type=text_image&format=775×280&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.tori.ng%2Fnews%2F313546%2Fyahaya-bello-n640m-was-withdrawn-in-six-days-from.html&fwr=0&pra=3&rh=194&rw=775&rpe=1&resp_fmts=3&wgl=1&fa=27&abgtt=6&dt=1759952193740&bpp=2&bdt=14636&idt=2&shv=r20251007&mjsv=m202510020101&ptt=9&saldr=aa&abxe=1&cookie=ID%3D5eb92c292ec045ce%3AT%3D1759952153%3ART%3D1759952153%3AS%3DALNI_MbSZjeUg3-ZqH1Os4sZQJuyk54ljg&gpic=UID%3D000012967f69cd7d%3AT%3D1759952153%3ART%3D1759952153%3AS%3DALNI_MaXfmi3_7WUhlzibccweD1NsBrQZg&eo_id_str=ID%3D11b38de1d7d6d807%3AT%3D1759952153%3ART%3D1759952153%3AS%3DAA-AfjbgQvwq4UXd4D0D5rPqe5b1&prev_fmts=0x0%2C1200x280%2C316x250%2C775x280%2C1485x706%2C1005x124%2C775x280&nras=6&correlator=6578219137957&frm=20&pv=1&u_tz=120&u_his=3&u_h=864&u_w=1536&u_ah=816&u_aw=1536&u_cd=24&u_sd=1.25&adx=192&ady=3820&biw=1485&bih=706&scr_x=0&scr_y=1024&eid=31094978%2C31095050%2C31095056%2C31095081%2C31095084%2C95370628%2C95373012%2C95370792&oid=2&psts=AOrYGsnz0lgirKjg-lLZbp4p5PGoh5pTzzgGrrxqO2bkNa6kKnCYOPBJ4o2OC4_x9y6GLELQwSI14s0OoZvV7XUoRotRiq2Yv99iDCaeX3-sWNoNX3E%2CAOrYGsnvIvLBniJUum9ejstolmbQzMWho6tl2Uki8r_jHthv64DE0Dkik06luMtOE-kRPWnn_kZQpcoMR3PMxU2__X8JM07eTi8xyBejRnFfW6AXjiMSnITyeeTJDXT1ilI1In9D&pvsid=4246465902957235&tmod=1446601460&uas=1&nvt=3&fc=1408&brdim=-7%2C-7%2C-7%2C-7%2C1536%2C0%2C1550%2C830%2C1485%2C706&vis=1&rsz=%7C%7Cs%7C&abl=NS&fu=128&bc=31&plas=131x632_l%7C131x632_r&bz=1.04&ifi=7&uci=a!7&btvi=5&fsb=1&dtd=M
Under cross-examination by Daudu, the witness admitted not knowing the 1st defendant (Bello) and 3rd defendant (Oricha). She also admitted not knowing any of the things she mentioned in her testimony.
Under cross-examination by Aliyu, the witness admitted not knowing the source or purpose of the funds.
The prosecution then called its 5th witness from Polaris Bank, Victoria Oluwafemi.
Earlier, Daudu informed the court about an application before it, challenging jurisdiction.
He prayed the court to take their application so as not to waste precious time on witnesses.
“I urge your lordship to give us a date. Let’s deal with the issue of jurisdiction,” he submitted.
Prosecution’s counsel, Pinheiro, however, argued that the application was not ripe for hearing and that the motion should wait until November 12, another date for hearing.
“In respect of taking dates for the application, we have dates in November. Today and tomorrow are for hearing. Neither of the applications is ripe. Neither of the applications is ripe for hearing. We have been here for over one year and now you are raising the issue of jurisdiction,” Pinheiro said.
Daudu responded, stating, “We can raise it anytime.”
Pinheiro insisted, stating, “For the priority of time, November will be convenient for the hearing of the two applications.”
The trial is scheduled to continue tomorrow, as Justice Anenih adjourned the matter to October 9, 2025, for continuation of the trial.
