FCT High Court rules it has authority to hear EFCC’s 16-count charge, rejects claims of abuse of court process

A High Court of the Federal Capital Territory (FCT) in Abuja has dismissed an application by former Kogi State governor, Yahaya Bello, contesting its jurisdiction over the N110 billion fraud case brought against him by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC).

Delivering the ruling on Tuesday, presiding judge Maryann Anenih held that the court is fully empowered to hear the case and declined Bello’s request to strike out the 16-count charge.

Bello’s counsel, Joseph Daudu, had argued that the FCT High Court lacked the territorial jurisdiction to entertain the matter. He further claimed that the charge constituted an abuse of court process, citing a separate criminal case involving Bello already pending before a Federal High Court in Abuja.

However, EFCC counsel, Kemi Pinheiro, opposed the application, describing it as baseless and a tactic to stall proceedings. He maintained that the charges were filed under the Penal Code, making them properly triable before the FCT High Court. Pinheiro also pointed out that some of the properties linked to the alleged offences are located within Abuja, thereby reinforcing the court’s jurisdiction.

On the allegation of abuse of court process, the EFCC argued that the cases before the two courts are distinct in nature. While the FCT case borders on conspiracy and criminal breach of trust under the Penal Code, the matter before the Federal High Court involves alleged money laundering offences.

The commission further noted differences in the parties involved, explaining that Bello is the sole defendant in the Federal High Court case, whereas the FCT charge includes two additional defendants.

In her decision, Justice Anenih agreed with the EFCC’s arguments, affirming that the court has the competence to hear the case and that the proceedings do not amount to an abuse of court process.

The court subsequently dismissed Bello’s application. A similar application filed by the third defendant was also struck out for lacking merit.

Following the ruling, the judge directed the prosecution to proceed with its case, including the testimony of its 16th witness, who was already present in court.