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.
Discussion about this post