The sixth prosecution witness in the ongoing money laundering case involving former Kogi State Governor, Yahaya Bello, has told an FCT High Court that he never served as the account officer for the Kogi State Government House Administration Account.
The witness, Mshelia Bata, a compliance officer with Zenith Bank, made the clarification while responding to questions from Bello’s lead counsel, Joseph Daudu. He stated clearly that although the account was domiciled in the bank’s Lokoja branch, he never worked at that branch at any time.
“I was not the account officer to the Kogi State Government House Administration account,” he told the court.
Bata also explained that he did not prepare any of the documents tendered by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission. However, he confirmed that one Abdulsalami Hudu, whose name appeared repeatedly across several transactions, was an authorised signatory to the account.
“Hudu’s name is on the mandate. That means he was authorised to operate the account,” he said.
He went on to list the individuals who had signing authority from the time the account was opened in 2005. He mentioned Chris Enefola as an early signatory, along with Onekutu Daniel M. and Abdulsalami Hudu. He added that Oricha Shaibu joined the mandate in 2016, Ahmed Idris in 2018, and Alhassan Omakoji in 2019.
Bata acknowledged that relationship managers usually have deeper knowledge of an account’s day-to-day operations than compliance officers. He further confirmed that the Central Bank of Nigeria maintained a withdrawal cap of N10 million for government accounts and N500,000 for individual accounts, noting that the withdrawals in question fell within the approved threshold.
According to him, the N10 million limit applied to each signatory and any officially introduced representative of the account.
When Daudu pressed him to explain why the name of the person linked to 19 separate N10 million withdrawals appeared in three different variations, the witness said he could not speculate.
“I cannot assume why the names appeared differently. Without the introductory documents, I would not know,” he said.
The defence lawyer had argued that only the withdrawal instruments themselves could show whether the same person carried out all 19 transactions.
Prosecution counsel, Kemi Pinheiro (SAN), objected, describing the question as speculative and outside the facts before the court. “A witness can only speak on what he knows,” he maintained.
The court, presided over by Justice Maryann Anenih, adjourned the matter midway through cross-examination. The trial will continue on January 15 and 16, February 10 and 11, and March 10, 11, and 12, 2026.
