Yahaya Bello Trial: Zenith Bank Official Denies Managing Disputed Account

The Sixth Prosecution Witness of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC), Mshelia Arhyel Bata, on Thursday, told the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory that he was never the account officer for the Kogi State Government House Administration account where alleged withdrawals referenced in the trial were made.

Bata, a Compliance Officer with Zenith Bank, told Justice Maryann Anenih during cross-examination by Joseph Daudu, counsel to former Governor Yahaya Bello, that the account was domiciled at the Lokoja branch and he never worked there.

He further clarified that he was not the maker of the exhibits tendered by the EFCC in which he testified.

The witness confirmed that Abdulsalam Hudu, whose name appeared on multiple transactions, was duly authorised to operate the account because he was listed as a signatory on the mandate.

“Am I correct to say that, in your bank, every account usually has a branch manager and a relationship manager?” the Defence Counsel asked.

The witness agreed and admitted that the relationship manager had a more intimate knowledge of the account operations than the compliance officer.

Referring to Exhibit S2, the witness said the account was opened in 2005 with Chris A. Enefola, Onekutu Daniel M., and Abdulsalami Hudu as signatories. Oricha Umoru Shaibu was added in 2016, Ahmed Idris in 2018, and Alhassan Omakoji in 2019.

Bata also confirmed that the Central Bank of Nigeria’s withdrawal limit of N10m for government accounts and N500,000 for individual accounts was adhered to in all transactions.

According to him, any person who operates the account in a consistent manner is deemed a representative of the organisation.

“I can say that Abdulsalami Hudu was authorised because his name appears on the mandate.”

This was against the background that multiple transactions were recorded in favour of Abdulsalam Hudu.

The defendant’s Counsel then asked the witness to tell the court the beneficiaries of the multiple transactions of N10m each on December 15, 2017 – the names, the number of withdrawals, and how they appeared – which he did.

Daudu then asked, “From what you have just stated, there are three variations of names. Since banks are usually strict with name consistency, how do we ascertain that the person involved in all the 19 transactions is the same individual?

“How can we determine that from the withdrawal instruments?”

Prosecution Counsel, Kemi Pinheiro, a Senior Advocate of Nigeria, objected to the question, saying, “My Lord, I object. The question is speculative. Questions asked during cross-examination must relate to facts in issue.

“A witness can only give evidence on facts within his knowledge, not on what might or might not have happened.”

Daudu responded, “My Lord, the question is not speculative. The witness has admitted that the 19 transactions were carried out under three different name variations.

“I am putting it to him that it is the withdrawal instruments themselves that would determine the identity of the person who carried out the transactions.”

The witness noted that he could not assume why the names appeared differently.

“Without the introductory documents, I would not know,” he told the court.

After cross-examination, Justice Anenih adjourned to January 15–16, February 10–11, and March 10–12, 2026, for the continuation of the trial.