By Emmanuella Ekele

The sixth prosecution witness of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC), Mshelia Bata, has told the FCT High Court that he was never the account officer of the Kogi State Government House Administration Account.

While admitting that the account was domiciled in a bank’s Lokoja branch, he noted that he never worked there. The witness, a compliance officer with Zenith Bank Plc, offered the explanations while being cross-examined by the Counsel to the immediate past Governor of Kogi State, Yahaya Bello, Joseph Daudu.

He also admitted that he was not the maker of the Exhibits tendered in court by the EFCC.

The witness, however, noted that Abdulsalam Hudu, whose name appeared on multiple transactions in the Exhibits tendered, was duly authorised to operate the Kogi State Government House Administration account.

He said Hudu’s name appeared on the mandate as a signatory to the account.

The witness agreed and admitted that the relationship manager had a more intimate knowledge of the account operations than the compliance officer.

Looking at Exhibit S2, he told the court that the account was opened sometime in 2005 and listed the signatories to the account.

He stated that at the time of opening, one Chris Enefola was a signatory to the account. Onekutu Daniel M. and Abdulsalami Hudu were also signatories.

On cross-examination, he added that Oricha Shaibu was introduced as a signatory in 2016, as reflected on page 5 of the mandate, adding that Ahmed Idris was introduced in 2018, and Alhassan Omakoji in 2019.

As in previous hearings, he confirmed that the Central Bank of Nigeria’s withdrawal limit for government accounts was N10 million and for individual accounts, N500,000, implying that this was adhered to in the transactions.

The Zenith Bank compliance officer noted that the N10 million withdrawal limit applied to all signatories and duly introduced representatives of the account.

According to him, any person who operates the account in a consistent manner is deemed a representative of the organisation.

“I can say that Abdulsalami Hudu was authorised because his name appears on the mandate,” he said.

This was against the background that multiple transactions were recorded in favour of Abdulsalam Hudu.

The defendant’s counsel then told the witness to tell the court the beneficiaries of the multiple transactions of N10 million each on December 15, 2017 – the names, the number of withdrawals, and how they appeared – which he did.

Daudu then asked, “From what you have just stated, there are three variations of names. Since banks are usually strict with name consistency, how do we ascertain that the person involved in all the 19 transactions is the same individual?

“How can we determine that from the withdrawal instruments?”

Prosecution Counsel, Kemi Pinheiro (SAN), objected to the question, saying it was speculative, adding that Questions asked during cross-examination must relate to facts in issue.

“A witness can only give evidence on facts within his knowledge, not on what might or might not have happened,” he said.

Daudu, however, responded that the question was not speculative. The witness has admitted that the 19 transactions were carried out under three different name variations.

“I am putting it to him that it is the withdrawal instruments themselves that would determine the identity of the person who carried out the transactions,” Daudu stated.

The witness noted that he could not assume why the names appeared differently.

“Without the introductory documents, I would not know,” he told the court.

The witness had, at the previous day’s proceedings, confirmed multiple transactions of N10 million each on the Kogi State Government House Administration Account, which he said were within the transaction limits.

Midway into cross-examination, Justice Maryann Anenih adjourned the case to January 15 and 16, February 10 and 11, and March 10, 11, and 12, 2026, for continuation of the trial.

Source; Channels News