Justice Maryanne Anineh of the Federal Capital Territory (FCT) High Court Thursday struck out an application by the former Kogi State governor, Yahaya Bello for the release of his passport to enable him travel to the United Kingdom for medical treatment.
The Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) is prosecuting Bello alongside Umar Oricha and Abdulsalami Hudu before Justice Anineh on a 16-count charge, bordering on criminal breach of trust and money laundering to the tune of N110.4 billion.
At the last sitting, Bello, through his counsel, J.B. Daudu, SAN, had made an application, dated June 19, 2025 and filed on June 20, 2025, praying for a temporary release of his passport to enable him attend a scheduled medical appointment in the UK with an undertaking to return the passport to the court upon his return.
In his response to the application, prosecution counsel, Chukwudi Enebeli, SAN, however, urged the court to refuse the request, arguing that the application was aimed at altering the bail conditions the court imposed on the defendant, which required him to deposit his passport with the court.
He further argued that the defendant’s sureties ought to have been put on notice to confirm their continued willingness or not to remain as sureties if the defendant was permitted to travel out of the country.
The prosecution counsel further submitted that the defendant had engaged in abuse of court process by filing a similar application in another court, which was still pending.
He said: “The proper thing would have been for the defendant to retrieve his passport from the other court and then apply for a travel permit before this court. Asking both courts to release the same passport at the same time creates the risk of conflicting orders, which is an abuse of process.”
At the resumed sitting on Thursday, prosecution counsel, Jami’u Agburo, informed the court that the matter was for ruling on the application and that the prosecution was ready.
In her ruling, Justice Anineh held that her court lacked the jurisdiction to grant the application since the defendant’s passport was not held by her court.
“A review of the court’s record revealed that the applicant had previously been ordered to deposit his passport and other travel documents with the registry of the court.
“However, upon further inquiry and search conducted by the court, it was discovered that the said passport was not presently in the custody of the court’s registry but with the Federal High Court. The defendant even deposed to an affidavit himself, stating that his passport had been deposited with the Federal High Court in a bail earlier granted him.
“The simple logic is that the passport cannot be with two different courts at the same time. Since the defendant admitted depositing the passport with the Federal High Court, there is no reason making any order here in regards to the application.
“Courts don’t make orders in vain and as such, this court will not make any order that will be in vain since the passport in issue is not with this court but the Federal High Court,” she said.
She adjourned the case till October 8, 9 and November 13, 2025,for continuation of trial.