Yahaya Bello: Court Adjourns to Rule on Admissibility of Deed of Assignment, Irrevocable Power of Attorney

ABUJA, Nigeria – March 9, 2026

Justice Emeka Nwite of the Federal High Court, Maitama, Abuja, on Tuesday adjourned proceedings to deliver a ruling on the admissibility of a Deed of Assignment and an Irrevocable Power of Attorney tendered by the (EFCC) in the ongoing trial of former Kogi State Governor, .

The documents are central to the prosecution’s case in the 19-count charge bordering on alleged money laundering to the tune of ₦80,246,470,088.88.
Disputed Property Transaction
At the heart of the dispute is Plot 1160, Cadastral Zone, Gwarimpa 2, Abuja, allegedly sold for ₦100 million.
The prosecution sought to tender the documents through its 10th prosecution witness (PW10), Mahmoud Abdulaziz, Chief Accountant of Dantata & Sawoe Construction Limited.

Abdulaziz testified that the company sold the property, measuring 8,240.72 square metres, to Azba Real Estate Limited for ₦100 million. According to him, the payment was made in tranches: ₦70 million on February 17, 2021; ₦10 million on February 19; and ₦20 million on February 22, 2021, via electronic transfers into the company’s Keystone Bank account.
He told the court that the transfers were made by Maigari Murtala, while the Deed of Assignment was executed between Dantata & Sawoe Construction Limited and Azba Real Estate Limited, and signed by Mubarak Dantata, Nasiru Dantata and Ali Bello. He further stated that an Irrevocable Power of Attorney was executed between Mubarak Dantata and Ali Bello, and that both documents were submitted to the EFCC during investigation.

Defence Raises Objection
Defence counsel, J.B. Daudu, SAN, objected to the admissibility of the documents on three grounds.
“My lord, the first document is an irrevocable power of attorney and the second is a deed of assignment in respect of the same land. These are registrable instruments relating to title and ought to have been registered,” he argued.
Daudu maintained that only Certified True Copies (CTC) from the appropriate land registry would be admissible. He further contended that the EFCC was not the custodian of land documents and that certification by an EFCC official was contrary to Section 114 of the Evidence Act.
“On these three grounds, my lord, these documents are inadmissible,” he submitted.
Prosecution Counters
Responding, Kemi Pinheiro, SAN, described the objection as a misconception of the law.
“The evidence of the witness is unambiguous. He has led oral evidence of the transaction and receipt of money. These documents are being tendered to anchor that oral evidence,” he said.

Pinheiro stressed that the matter before the court was a criminal prosecution for money laundering, not a civil dispute over land title.
“This is about financial crimes and the flow of funds. We are not tendering these documents to prove title or ownership. This court does not have jurisdiction to determine title to land,” he argued.

He further submitted that a document inadmissible for one purpose may be admissible for another, adding that once a private document is submitted to a public officer during investigation, it becomes a public document in custody and may be certified.
Citing the Supreme Court decision in Audu v. FRN (2025) 5 NWLR (Pt. 1984) 61, Pinheiro contended that the issue had already been settled by the apex court.

In reply, Daudu insisted that no specific purpose had been clearly stated for tendering the documents other than to juxtapose the names of the payer and the signatory.
“Even if it is to be admitted as receipt, there must be a consideration clause; otherwise, it is inadmissible,” he argued.
Pinheiro, however, countered that the Deed of Assignment contained a consideration clause and urged the court to admit both documents in evidence.

After hearing arguments from both parties, Justice Nwite adjourned the matter till March 9, 2026, for ruling on the admissibility of the documents and continuation of trial.