A prosecution witness in the ongoing alleged ₦80.2 billion money laundering case involving former Yahaya Bello has told the Federal High Court in Abuja that Ali Bello made several cash payments for the construction of a property in Maitama.
The witness, Shehu Bello, testified before Justice Emeka Nwite on Thursday during the continuation of proceedings in the case filed by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC).
According to the witness, the payments he personally knew about included ₦9 million, ₦8.5 million and ₦5.8 million, all allegedly paid in cash for the development of a property located at Plot 1891, Dala Hills, Maitama, Abuja.
The EFCC is prosecuting Yahaya Bello over allegations of money laundering involving more than ₦80 billion.
While being led in evidence by prosecution counsel, Olukayode Enitan, the witness explained that Ali Bello had approached him to recommend a reputable construction company for the Maitama project.
He said he introduced Metro Deck Construction Company Limited, which was eventually awarded the contract to build the house.
The witness further told the court that payments to the construction company were made both through bank transfers and cash transactions.
“The cash payments I am aware of were made in naira,” he stated, adding that the amounts included ₦9 million, ₦8.5 million and ₦5.8 million.
Shehu Bello also testified about another property located at Plot 1058, Cadastral Zone A08, Wuse II, Abuja, which he said Ali Bello intended to develop into shopping complexes.
According to him, he assisted in sourcing the property after Ali Bello requested help in finding land within the Wuse II area.
The witness said the property was eventually purchased from SFC Foods Limited for ₦650 million through a bank transfer.
During the hearing, Bello confirmed making statements to the EFCC during the investigation and identified the documents presented in court as bearing his signatures.
However, defence counsel, Adebayo Adedeji, objected to the prosecution’s attempt to tender the witness’s extra-judicial statements as evidence, arguing that such documents could not serve as substantive evidence for the prosecution.
In response, Enitan insisted the documents were relevant and admissible since the witness had acknowledged them in court.
Following arguments from both sides, Justice Nwite adjourned the matter to June 15 and 18, 2026, for ruling on the admissibility of the statements and continuation of the trial.