The Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) has denied claims that it threatened Ali Bello and his co-defendant, Dauda Sulaiman, with an electric chair during investigations into an alleged N10 billion fraud case in Kogi State.
The issue arose on Tuesday, February 17, 2026, during a trial-within-trial at the Federal High Court in Maitama, Abuja, presided over by Justice James Omotosho.
Ali Bello, Chief of Staff to Kogi State Governor Ahmed Usman Ododo and nephew to former Governor Yahaya Adoza Bello, is standing trial alongside Sulaiman on a 16-count amended charge bordering on alleged misappropriation and money laundering amounting to N10,270,556,800.
In a post on X, the EFCC stated that the second prosecution witness, Yazid Bawa, an EFCC investigator, told the court that none of the defendants was threatened to make a statement.
When asked who threatened Sulaiman with an electric chair, Bawa replied, “No one. In fact, I have never seen one before.”
He maintained that the statements made by the defendants were voluntary and that “no form of coercion or threat” was used against them.
The third prosecution witness, Adamu Usman Yusuf, who led the EFCC investigative team on the case, also denied the allegation of threats.
“This is surprising. If My Lord goes through the statements, he will see places where he said that he would not comment or that he could not say anything.
“Throughout, Abbas (defence counsel) was present and one other lady. At lunch, they ate and then we continued,” Yusuf said.
When shown documents marked as exhibits and asked whether the defendants were forced to write their statements, he responded, “No. And he signed the cautionary words.”
During cross-examination, counsel to Ali Bello, A.M. Aliyu, SAN, alleged that EFCC officers told his client he would rot in jail if he failed to state that certain properties belonged to Yahaya Bello.
Responding, the witness said, “My lord, that is not true.”
Yusuf also explained that Sulaiman was detained because he failed to produce a surety.
On why the statements were not audio-visually recorded, he said they were confessional and that the defence lawyer present did not complain of any maltreatment.
The trial-within-trial was ordered to determine whether the defendants’ extra-judicial statements were made voluntarily, after they alleged in court that the statements were obtained under duress.
After cross-examination, defence lawyers sought an adjournment to enable them to open and close their case.
Justice Omotosho adjourned the matter to February 18, 2026, for the defence to present its case and for further hearing.
Eze Chidiebere Paul
I'm dedicated to creating high-quality content that informs, inspires, and delights. If you have any questions or suggestions, don't hesitate to get in touch. Happy reading!
