In the current N10 billion money laundering case brought by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) against Ali Bello, the Chief of Staff (CoS) to Governor Usman Ododo of Kogi State, Justice James Omotosho of the Federal High Court in Abuja has recused himself.
In a decision on Thursday, Justice Omotosho stated that he thought the ruling was reasonable, fair, and beneficial to the parties, the administration of justice, and society as a whole.
The development came when Mr. Nasir Zubairu Onimisi, the court registrar, admitted to tampering with one of the evidence that the EFCC, which was prosecuting the case, had submitted.
Ali Bello, the nephew of former Kogi State Governor Yahaya Bello, and Dauda Sulaiman were charged by the anti-graft agency in 2022 with fraud concerning the purported diversion of cash from the Kogi State Government’s accounts.
Sulaiman was the second defendant in the 10-count charge with the number FHC/ABJ/CR/550/2022, while Bello was named as the first defendant.
Onimisi acknowledged in public court on February 5 that he had told the judge that he had tampered with Exhibit “N” after the defendants reportedly offered to give him a house in Abuja.
The incident happened as Muhammad Abubakar, an EFCC investigator, was testifying as the 17th prosecution witness.
As a result, Justice Omotosho issued an order for Onimisi’s arrest and instructed the police and the Department of State Services (DSS) to look into the defendants and the registrar and report back to the court.
Bello and Sulaiman chose to file a no-case submission after the anti-graft agency ended its case after calling 17 witnesses, citing the commission’s inability to present enough evidence to allow them to present a defence.
However, Justice Omotosho questioned Abbas Muhammed, who represented the EFCC, on the investigation’s findings seven months later when the matter was called on Thursday for the defence attorneys, E. A. Oshayomi and Olusegun Jolaawo, SAN, to submit their written addresses on the no-case submission.
In response, Muhammad stated that he had discovered the DSS had finished its investigation and that the report had been delivered to the Federal Ministry of Justice’s Director of Public Prosecutions of the Federation (DPPF) office.
The attorney claimed he didn’t yet know the investigation’s conclusion, but he vowed to provide the court with more information.
In his decision, Justice Omotosho recalled that his registrar had confided in him about manipulating a case-related exhibit.
“On February 5, 2026, at approximately 6:30 a.m., my registrar, Nasir Onimisi, called and visited my home, where he admitted to tampering with one of the exhibits—a phone that contained WhatsApp communications related to transactions related to the case.
The judge added, “He claimed that he tampered with the phone because the defendants had promised him a house in Abuja.”
“Onimisi appealed to me to assist him, but I bluntly refused, stating that I could not assist him in such circumstances,” the judge said. Luckily, the case was scheduled for hearing the same morning.
“I played the audio of the conversation that had occurred in my sitting room when Nasir came to tell me these facts in open court when the issue was called at around ten in the morning.
All of the parties and their solicitors were present when the recording was played. After that, I handed Nasir the microphone and asked him to verify that the recording was accurate.
In public court, he verified the recording’s contents and reiterated its main points. In order to determine whether the messages and transactions had actually been tampered with, the court turned on the phone, which is Exhibit ‘N,’ and accessed its contents as well as the WhatsApp platform, he added.
According to the judge, it was found that the contents had been altered after being examined in public and in front of all the parties.
In order to decide on the best course of action and determine whether the exhibit had been tampered with scientifically, I ordered the arrest of Nasir and the accused for an inquiry that included forensic examination of their calls and phones.
Justice Omotosho stated, “The investigation is still ongoing as of today, and the prosecution has not informed me whether it has been concluded.”
The judge added that he discovered that “the exhibit in question constitutes one of the material pieces of evidence and is, in effect, one of the backbones of the prosecution’s case” while reviewing the case file early in the morning in preparation for the proceedings for the adoption of addresses regarding the no-case submission.
“I have to admit that some of the exhibit’s contents were downloaded onto a flash drive that was presented to the court.
But I noticed that if I pursued the case all the way to the end, the court might have to provide the aforementioned exhibit probative value.
“I have taken into account what an average person on the street might reasonably think in the circumstances of this case if I were to ascribe no probative value or only very low probative value to the exhibit in my ruling in no-case submission to enable the court to determine whether or not a prima facie case has been established.
Such a person might think that I was trying to downplay or hide the importance of the purported exhibit tampering.
However, if I were to give the exhibit significant probative value, a layperson may conclude that I was irritated by the events surrounding the alleged tampering based on the same impression of the circumstances.
It is crucial to note that, while this case was pending and following the alleged tampering incident, I ordered the Federal Government of Nigeria to forfeit a property located at No. 12, 5th Avenue, 59 Crescent, Gwarimpa, Abuja. The property was purportedly purchased for an Islamic cleric who prayed for Senator Oseni Yakubu.
“The defendants and the current case are closely linked to this forfeiture case.
“I therefore consider this circumstance relevant to the question of how the parties and the public might reasonably perceive my continued participation in the proceedings because this court needs to consider and look at Exhibit ‘N’ in conjunction with other evidence to determine whether or not a prima facie case has been established against the defendants.”
The judge asserts that the most important factor is that justice must not only be carried out but also appear to be carried out by a reasonable person on the street.
Given the unique circumstances of this situation, I think it’s wise to take preventative measures.
“The public’s trust in the judiciary and the administration of justice may be negatively impacted if I proceed with the proceedings and any additional incidents pertaining to the case file or the exhibits occur. These perceptions and conclusions may be justified or not.