 |
| Access Bank. |
Arguments over the examination of a subpoenaed prosecution witness in the trial of former Kogi State Governor, Yahaya Adoza Bello, on Tuesday, February 10, 2026, stalled proceedings 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 to
the tune of an alleged ₦110.4 billion.
At
the resumed proceedings, lead prosecution counsel, Kemi Pinheiro, SAN, informed
the court that the matter was for continuation of trial and that Prosecution
Witness Ten (PW10), Olomotane Egoro, a Compliance Officer with Access Bank, who
was under subpoena, was present in 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 moved to examine the witness, P.B. Daudu, SAN, and
Z.E. Abbas objected, contending that the prosecution could not
examine the witness on the basis of a mere application for subpoena, insisting
that the subpoena itself ought to be produced and tendered before the witness
could testify.
In
response, Pinheiro argued that the subpoena formed part of the court’s record,
having been issued pursuant to an order of court, and that the court was
entitled to look at any process contained in its records. He further submitted
that there was no statutory provision requiring the tendering of a subpoena
before a witness subpoenaed by the court could give evidence, noting that there
were a plethora of authorities supporting his position and describing the
objection as “clearly untenable.”
Replying
on points of law, Daudu maintained that it was the constitutional right of the
defence to be fully carried along in the proceedings, stressing that the trial
was a public one and not a secret trial, 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 the trial could proceed, adding that the authorities cited by
the prosecution were not applicable to the circumstances of the case.
Pinheiro,
in a further response, described the objection as an attempt to delay the
trial, an assertion Daudu refuted, stating that the defence was not in court to
frustrate proceedings.
In
her ruling, Justice Anineh held that, having considered the arguments 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.
.png)
0 Comments
DISCLAIMER
The views and opinions expressed on this platform as comments were freely made by each person under his or her own volition or responsibility and were neither suggested nor dictated by the owners of News PLATFORM or any of their contracted staff. So we take no liability whatsoever for such comments.
Please take note!