Proceedings in the ongoing trial of Yahaya  Bello, former Governor of Kogi State, were stalled on Tuesday at the Federal High Court in Abuja following a heated dispute over the examination of a subpoenaed prosecution witness.
 Maryanne Anineh (Justice) adjourned the matter after counsel for the defence objected to the prosecution’s move to examine an Access Bank compliance officer without first tendering the subpoena that compelled his appearance in court.
This was according to a statement by Dele Oyewale, Head, Media and Publicity at the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC).
Bello is being tried alongside Umar Shuaibu Oricha and Abdulsalami Hudu on 16 charges of criminal breach of trust and money laundering involving an alleged ₦110.4 billion.
At the resumed hearing on February 10, 2026, Kemi Pinheiro, lead prosecution counsel, informed the court that the matter was set for continuation of the trial.
He presented Prosecution Witness Ten (PW10), Olomotane Egoro, a Compliance Officer with Access Bank, who appeared under subpoena.
Pinheiro sought to tender the prosecution’s application for the issuance of the subpoena.
 The document was admitted in evidence and marked as Exhibit AE, with no objection from defence counsel P.B. Daudu, SAN, and Z.E. Abbas.
However, when the prosecution attempted to proceed with the examination of the witness, the defence objected.
Daudu and Abbas argued that the prosecution could not rely merely on the application for a subpoena.
They insisted that the subpoena itself, being the instrument compelling the witness’s attendance, must be produced and tendered before the witness could testify.
Responding, Pinheiro maintained that the subpoena was already part of the court’s record, having been issued pursuant to an order of the court.
He argued that there was no statutory requirement mandating the tendering of a subpoena before a witness subpoenaed by the court could give evidence.
According to him, the court was entitled to rely on processes in its own record. He added that there were several judicial authorities supporting his position and described the objection as “clearly untenable.”
Replying on points of law, Daudu contended that the defence had a constitutional right to be fully carried along in the proceedings.
 He stressed that the trial was a public one and not conducted in secrecy, adding that the defence was entitled to see and obtain a copy of the subpoena served on the witness.
Counsel to the third defendant, Abbas, aligned with the objection, arguing that the subpoena formed the legal basis for the witness’s appearance and that the defence was entitled to scrutinise it before the trial could proceed.
He further submitted that the authorities cited by the prosecution did not apply to the circumstances of the case.
Pinheiro, in a further response, characterised the objection as an attempt to delay the trial.
Daudu refuted the claim, insisting that the defence was not in court to frustrate proceedings but to ensure that due process was followed.
In a brief ruling, Anineh held that, having considered the arguments of counsel, the subpoena could be produced before the court.
She then adjourned the case to February 11 and 12, and March 11 and 12, 2026, for continuation of trial.

Join BusinessDay whatsapp Channel, to stay up to date

Open In Whatsapp