Court Adjourns ₦110.4bn Kogi Fraud Case over Subpoena Controversy
Proceedings in the trial of former Kogi State Governor, Yahaya Adoza Bello, were stalled on Tuesday, February 10, 2026, following arguments over the examination of a subpoenaed prosecution witness before Justice Maryanne Anineh of the Federal High Court, FCT, Abuja.
Bello is standing trial alongside Umar Shuaibu Oricha and Abdulsalami Hudu on a 16-count charge bordering on criminal breach of trust and money laundering involving an alleged sum of ₦110.4 billion.
At the resumed hearing, lead prosecution counsel, Kemi Pinheiro, SAN, informed the court that the matter was for continuation of trial and announced the presence of Prosecution Witness Ten (PW10), Olomotane Egoro, a Compliance Officer with Access Bank, who appeared pursuant to a subpoena issued by the court.
Pinheiro subsequently sought to tender the application for the issuance of the subpoena, which was admitted in evidence and marked as Exhibit AE, there being no objection from defence counsel, P.B. Daudu, SAN, and Z.E. Abbas.
However, when the prosecution attempted to examine the witness, defence counsel objected, arguing that the prosecution could not proceed on the basis of a mere application for subpoena. They insisted that the subpoena itself must be produced and tendered in evidence before the witness could testify.
In response, Pinheiro submitted that the subpoena was already part of the court’s record, having been issued pursuant to an order of court. He argued that there was no statutory requirement mandating the tendering of a subpoena before a subpoenaed witness could give evidence, adding that the objection lacked legal foundation.
Replying on points of law, Daudu maintained that the defence had a constitutional right to be fully carried along in the proceedings, stressing that the trial was a public one and that the defence was entitled to see and obtain a copy of the subpoena.
Counsel to the third defendant, Abbas, also argued that the subpoena formed the basis of the witness’s appearance in court and that the defence was entitled to examine it before proceedings could continue, contending that the authorities cited by the prosecution were inapplicable to the case.
Pinheiro, in a further response, described the objection as a deliberate attempt to delay the trial, an allegation Daudu firmly denied, stating that the defence had no intention of frustrating the proceedings.
In her ruling, Justice Anineh held that having considered the submissions of counsel, the subpoena could always be produced before the court. She consequently adjourned the matter to February 11 and 12, and March 11 and 12, 2026, for continuation of trial.
