Fresh revelations emerged on Monday at the Federal High Court in Abuja as a prosecution witness narrated how a property in Wuse II was sold for ₦650 million, in the ongoing trial of former Kogi State governor, Yahaya Bello.
The case, being heard before Justice Emeka Nwite, forms part of the trial in which the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) is prosecuting Bello on a 19-count charge of alleged money laundering amounting to ₦80.2 billion.
Testifying as the 11th prosecution witness, lawyer James Bem Igbakymeh told the court that he facilitated the sale of the property located at Plot 1058, Cadastral Zone A08, Wuse II, Abuja, following instructions from his client in October 2021.
According to the witness, he advertised the property by placing a banner on the building to attract potential buyers. Shortly afterwards, a man identified as Shehu Bello contacted him and visited his office to negotiate the purchase.
Igbakymeh said the negotiation eventually resulted in an agreement for the property to be sold for ₦650 million.
He explained that the payment for the property was made into three accounts provided by his client, namely SFC Foods Limited in Polaris Bank, JIT Agric Limited in Polaris Bank, and SFC Foods Limited in Heritage Bank.
The witness further told the court that the funds were transferred through different bureau de change operators before the property documents were handed over to the buyer.
Igbakymeh added that he was later invited by EFCC investigators who were probing the transaction. He said he honoured the invitation, submitted a written statement and provided relevant documents to assist the investigation.
When shown the Offer Letter and Deed of Assignment related to the transaction, the witness confirmed that he authored the letter and signed the deed together with his client. The court subsequently admitted the documents as Exhibits 44 and 45.
However, the witness told the court that the name appearing as the assignee on the Deed of Assignment was Ali Bello, not Shehu Bello.
He explained that both men had attended negotiation meetings together during the purchase process.
Under cross-examination, the witness admitted that he was not the one who prepared the Deed of Assignment, noting that the document was brought by representatives of the buyer.
