The Federal High Court in Abuja on Monday rejected a request by the immediate past Governor of Kogi State, Yahaya Bello, for the release of his international passport to enable him to travel abroad for medical treatment.
The court dismissed the application on the grounds that the medical report attached to the request was not signed by its author.
Bello, who is facing charges of alleged N80.2 billion fraud before Justice Emeka Nwite, brought against him by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission, had applied for the release of his travel document to enable him to seek medical attention in the United Kingdom.
Bello is also standing trial on similar charges before Justice Maryanne Anenih of the Federal Capital Territory High Court, Maitama.
Bello had filed a similar application before Justice Anenih’s court, seeking the release of his passport. However, the judge noted that the passport was not in the custody of the FCT High Court but with the Federal High Court, where it had been deposited.
She added that even if the application were granted, it would be ineffective since the passport was not in her court’s possession.
Meanwhile, the EFCC, while opposing the application, described it as an abuse of court process, stressing that seeking the same relief in two separate courts simultaneously risked conflicting rulings and undermined judicial integrity.
Justice Nwite, while delivering ruling at the resumed hearing of the alleged money laundering case, however, held that contrary to the EFCC’s submission, the application was not an abuse of court process.
He stated that counsel to the defendant had argued that the applicant had been a known hypertensive patient for about 15 years.
Defence counsel, Joseph Daudu (SAN), had presented Exhibits A and B, which contained expert reports on the health status of Bello, asserting that sufficient material had been provided to warrant the court exercising its discretion in favour of the application.
The judge also recalled that the prosecution had argued the motion was an abuse of process.
The EFCC, while urging the court to dismiss the application, argued that the reliefs sought were similar to those in the FCT court and that the motion was technically incompetent because the defendant’s sureties were not informed.
On the issue of suretyship, the court held that the matter before it was Yahaya Bello v. FRN and not a case involving the sureties.
Justice Nwite agreed with the defendant’s counsel, ruling that the sureties did not need to be included in the application.
“The counsel to the complainant did not cite any section of the law that says sureties should be notified or made parties to a motion on notice,” the judge said.
“He did not cite any law, whether local or international, to support his argument.
“On the issue of abuse of court process, the complainant argued that the application is incompetent and constitutes an abuse. It is not in dispute that the applicant is standing trial before both this court and the FCT High Court, and it is also not in dispute that he was granted bail by both courts — this court on December 13, 2024, and the FCT High Court on December 19, 2024.
“The FCT High Court, in its ruling, stated that the applicant must seek the leave of the court. Hence, this present application does not amount to an abuse of court process.
“It is also a fact that this court and the FCT High Court are courts of coordinate jurisdiction,” Justice Nwite added.
However, the court held that Exhibit B — the medical report submitted by a doctor — was not signed and, therefore, lacked legal efficacy.
The court emphasised that an unsigned document carries no legal weight and is considered worthless.
“In other words, Exhibit B is devoid of probative value and cannot be relied upon by the court,” the judge ruled.
“The defendant has failed to place sufficient material before this court to warrant the release of his passport for travel. Consequently, this application is hereby refused,” Justice Nwite declared.
The case was thereafter adjourned to October 7, 10 and November 10 and 11, 2025, for continuation of trial.
