The High Court of the Federal Capital Territory (FCT) has fixed July 17 as the date for delivering its ruling on a motion brought by former Kogi State Governor, Yahaya Bello. The application seeks Judicial authorization for Bello to leave the country in order to receive medical treatment.
Justice Maryanne Anenih selected the ruling date today, following submissions from both the Defence and Prosecution regarding the application.
Bello, along with Umar Oricha (Director General of the Kogi State Government House) and Abdulsalami Hudu, is facing a 16-count charge filed by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC). The charges pertain to allegations of criminal breach of trust involving a sum of N110.4 billion.
At the start of the hearing, Bello’s counsel, Joseph Daudu (SAN), informed the Court that his client had submitted the application on June 20, 2025.
Daudu stated, “It seeks an order for the release of the 1st defendant/applicant’s international passport by the Registrar of this court to enable him to travel for medical attention.”
The former Governor had earlier handed over his passport to the Court as part of the bail terms imposed on him.
However, EFCC’s lead prosecutor, Chukwudi Enebeli (SAN), challenged the motion, characterizing it as a misuse of the court’s process.
Enebeli pointed out that Bello had previously filed an identical request before the Federal High Court in Abuja, where he is also facing a separate set of charges.
He expressed concern that submitting the same request to both Courts might create Jurisdictional conflict. He warned that if the Federal High Court denies the request while the FCT High Court approves it, it could undermine the integrity of the judicial system.
Enebeli further argued that the former governor ought to have formally notified his sureties about the travel application. He emphasized that the sureties should be given the opportunity to reassess whether they wish to maintain their role in light of the proposed international travel.
In his response, Daudu rejected the notion that filing the same application in two courts amounted to a procedural abuse. He asserted that it was the EFCC’s decision to file different charges before separate Courts, which necessitated multiple applications.
Daudu remarked, “It will be a futile exercise to apply in one court and not to apply in the other court.”
He added that the sureties had already been made aware of the application and did not require a formal notice.
The defence counsel urged the court to approve the motion, stating that, “He (Bello) has never flouted your lordship’s order.”
