The judge will decide on the EFCC’s request to continue the N80.2 billion money laundering trial of former Governor Yahaya Bello in his absence.
On Wednesday, the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) urged the Federal High Court in Abuja to allow the trial of former Kogi State Governor Yahaya Bello to proceed in his absence.
Mr. Bello faces 19 counts of money laundering involving an alleged N80.2 billion in Kogi State funds and has repeatedly ignored court summons since his initial arraignment in April.
Wednesday marked the eighth court session he has missed. His defense team cited recent appeals filed at the Supreme Court as the reason for his absence from the proceedings on September 25.
Urging trial judge Emeka Nwite to allow Yahaya Bello’s trial to proceed in absentia, EFCC prosecutor Kemi Pinheiro, a Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN), argued that the former governor’s failure to appear should not hinder the legal process.
In a statement shared with PREMIUM TIMES, Mr. Pinheiro requested that the court enter a plea of “not guilty” on behalf of Mr. Bello to initiate the trial. He referenced Section 276 of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act, emphasizing that a defendant’s physical presence is not mandatory for arraignment and that the right to plead can be waived.
“My first application is to formally enter a plea of not guilty for the defendant, even in his absence. Secondly, the trial can proceed regardless of his physical presence. What prejudice would the defendant suffer if the court enters a plea in his absence? Even if he were present and pleaded not guilty, the outcome would remain unchanged. By entering a plea of not guilty, your lordship invites the prosecution to present its case,” the prosecutor stated.
Mr. Pinheiro told the court that the former governor’s refusal to appear for his arraignment was malicious and urged the court not to succumb to helplessness by avoiding a trial in absentia.
“A court can never show helplessness; that would suggest anarchy, undermining the rule of law,” he argued. He further emphasized that a defendant’s refusal to participate should not derail the trial, asserting that justice involves three parties: the defendant, the prosecution, and society. “A criminal trial must not be held hostage by a defendant’s refusal to engage. Justice must be served to all involved.”
In response, defense lawyer Michael Adoyi opposed the prosecution’s request, referencing a prior court order mandating the defendant’s presence before any applications could be addressed. “This application contravenes the existing order that no application can be entertained in the absence of the defendant’s arraignment,” he stated.
Nonetheless, Mr. Pinheiro urged the court to dismiss the defense’s objections and move forward with the plea in absentia, assuring that it would not violate the defendant’s rights or fairness in the proceedings.
After hearing from both sides, the judge adjourned the session for a ruling, noting, “It may not be possible to deliver this ruling this year.”
Mr. Pinheiro proposed that the case be adjourned for ruling and arraignment, and the judge agreed, scheduling the next hearing for January 21, 2025.
Bello’s Legal Troubles
In addition to the money laundering case in the Federal High Court, Mr. Bello is also facing another corruption case at the Federal Capital Territory (FCT) High Court, where he has similarly ignored summons regarding N110 billion fraud charges.
On October 24, Mr. Bello failed to appear before the FCT High Court despite a summons issued by trial judge Maryanne Anenih on October 3. The judge granted the EFCC permission for substituted service of the charges, allowing them to serve documents without personally delivering them to the defendant.
The EFCC filed the fraud charges, alleging that Mr. Bello, along with two co-defendants—Umar Oricha and Abdulsalami Hudu—diverted over N110 billion in Kogi State government funds in 2016, during Mr. Bello’s first year in office.
Following Mr. Bello’s absence from court, Rotimi Oyedepo, a Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN), requested that the case be postponed until after the summons issued to the former governor expires on November 14. The judge granted this request.
