Abuja Court Admits Critical Evidence in N10 Billion Fraud Trial Involving Kogi Chief of Staff

Abuja court rules Ali Bello’s statements admissible in N10 billion fraud trial, dismissing claims of EFCC coercion and setting new deadlines for 2026.

By: AXL Media

Published: Mar 18, 2026, 4:39 PM EDT

Source: The information in this article was sourced from The Authority

Judicial Validation of Prosecution Evidence in High Profile Fraud Case

A significant legal hurdle was cleared on Wednesday as the Federal High Court in Abuja formally accepted the statements of Ali Bello, the Chief of Staff to the Kogi State Governor, into evidence. This ruling comes amid a complex N10 billion money laundering trial that has drawn national attention due to the high profile nature of the defendants. Justice James Omotosho determined that the documents provided by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission were admissible, effectively setting the stage for the next phase of the prosecution.

Dismissal of Duress Allegations and Defense Objections

The defense had vigorously contested the admissibility of these statements, arguing that they were extracted under conditions of extreme duress and intimidation. Specifically, Dauda Suleiman, a co-defendant in the case, alleged that he had been threatened with an electric chair during his interrogation. However, Justice Omotosho found these claims to be unsubstantiated, noting that Suleiman admitted under cross examination that he never actually saw such a device. The court emphasized that the burden of proving involuntariness rests on the defense, and in this instance, the testimonies provided did not meet that threshold.

Procedural Compliance and the Presence of Legal Counsel

A pivotal factor in the court's decision was the documented presence of legal counsel during the interrogation process. The judge observed that Z.E. Abbas, a lawyer for the defendants, had endorsed the statements, signifying they were made in his presence. Justice Omotosho highlighted that the failure of the defense to call Abbas as a witness to testify against the voluntariness of the statements was a fundamental error. Under the Evidence Act of 2011, this omission created a legal presumption that any such testimony would have likely been unfavorable to the defendants' current claims.