Subpoena Dispute Stalls Access Bank Witness Testimony in N110.4bn Kogi Fraud Trial

P Proceedings in the trial of former Kogi State Governor, Yahaya Adoza Bello, were stalled on Tuesday, February 10, 2026, following a legal dispute over the examination of a subpoenaed prosecution witness at the Federal High Court, FCT, Abuja.

Bello is being tried alongside Umar Shuaibu Oricha and Abdulsalami Hudu on a 16-count charge bordering on alleged criminal breach of trust and money laundering involving ?110.4 billion.

At the resumed hearing before Justice Maryanne Anineh, lead prosecution counsel, Kemi Pinheiro, SAN, informed the court that the matter was slated for continuation of trial and announced the presence of Prosecution Witness Ten (PW10), Olomotane Egoro, a Compliance Officer with Access Bank, who had been summoned through a subpoena.

Pinheiro subsequently applied to tender the application used in securing the subpoena. The document was admitted in evidence and marked as Exhibit AE, as there was no objection from defence counsel, P.B. Daudu, SAN, and Z.E. Abbas.

However, tension arose when the prosecution moved to examine the witness. Defence counsel objected, arguing that the actual subpoena must be produced and tendered before the witness could testify.

Daudu maintained that the prosecution could not rely solely on the application for subpoena, insisting that the defence had a right to see the document that formed the basis for the witness’s appearance in court.

In response, Pinheiro argued that the subpoena was part of the court’s official records, having been issued pursuant to a valid court order, and therefore did not need to be tendered before the witness could give evidence.

“The subpoena formed part of the court’s record, having been issued pursuant to an order of court, and the court is entitled to look at any process contained in its records,” he said, adding that there was no statutory requirement mandating the tendering of a subpoena before a subpoenaed witness could testify.

He described the defence objection as “clearly untenable,” noting that there were several judicial authorities supporting his position.

Replying on points of law, Daudu insisted that the defence must be fully carried along in the proceedings.

“It is the constitutional right of the defence to be fully carried along. This is a public trial and not a secret one, and we are entitled to see and obtain a copy of the subpoena,” he argued.

Counsel to the third defendant, Abbas, also supported the objection, stating that the subpoena was the foundation for the witness’s presence in court and should be made available to the defence before the trial proceeded. He further contended that the legal authorities cited by the prosecution were not applicable to the circumstances of the case.

Pinheiro, in a further response, dismissed the objection as a deliberate attempt to slow down the trial, a claim Daudu rejected, stating that the defence was not in court to frustrate proceedings but to ensure due process.

In her ruling, Justice Anineh held that, having considered the arguments from both sides, the subpoena could always be produced before the court.

She subsequently adjourned the case to February 11 and 12, and March 11 and 12, 2026, for the continuation of trial.