By Aaior K. Comfort
The ongoing dispute between the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) and former Kogi State Governor Yahaya Bello took a dramatic turn on Wednesday, as both sides presented conflicting accounts of Bello’s response to an EFCC summons.
Bello’s media team, led by Director Ohiare Micheal, announced that the ex-governor had complied with the EFCC’s invitation. According to their statement, Bello, respecting the rule of law and due process, had decided to engage with the EFCC following consultations with his family, legal team, and political allies. The team emphasized Bello’s commitment to transparency and his belief in President Bola Tinubu’s anti-corruption efforts. They also noted that Bello had been accompanied by high-profile Nigerians and had nothing to hide.
The media release from Bello’s team highlighted that despite his previous non-compliance, Bello’s recent decision to attend the EFCC headquarters in Abuja was a testament to his respect for legal processes. It stressed that the former governor had been represented by his lawyers in court and sought to clear his name.
However, the EFCC contradicted these claims. Spokesman Dele Oyewale stated that Bello remained a wanted individual in connection with alleged N80.2 billion money laundering charges. He clarified that reports suggesting Bello was in EFCC custody were inaccurate. Oyewale emphasized that Bello had not been apprehended or interrogated.
Following Oyewale’s statement, Bello’s media office reiterated that the former governor had indeed visited the EFCC’s headquarters but was not questioned by officials. Bello, along with Kogi State Governor Ahmed Ododo, was reportedly allowed to leave without any interrogation, leaving Bello’s team uncertain about the next steps.
An anonymous source within Bello’s legal team confirmed the visit but provided no additional details. An insider further corroborated Bello’s presence at the EFCC premises on Wednesday.
As the situation unfolds, it remains to be seen how the EFCC will proceed with the case and whether further developments will clarify the discrepancies between the two accounts.