Court Declines to Hear Miyetti Allah President’s Plea to Vary Bail Conditions

The Federal High Court in Abuja on Thursday declined to hear a fresh application by detained National President of Miyetti Allah Kauta Kore, Bello Bodejo, seeking an order varying his bail conditions.
Justice Inyang Ekwo, in a ruling, held that since the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) is contesting the application, the court might be unable to conclude its proceedings before the court vacation commences.
The EFCC charged Bodejo with money laundering involving 2.63 million U.S. dollars.
Justice Ekwo had, on Monday, admitted Bodejo to a N2 billion bail with two sureties in the like sum.
The judge ordered that one of the sureties must present a three-year tax clearance evidence and must reside within the court’s jurisdiction, while the second sureties must have a land worth N2 billion in Abuja.
When the case was called on Thursday, Bodejo’s lawyer, Mohammed Sheriff, informed the court about the application by his client, seeking, among others, the variation of the conditions attached to the bail granted him.
The lawyer to the anti-graft agency, Fatai Erewunmi, said he was served with the application and had responded by filing a counter affidavit.
But the judge said upon looking at the tenure of the application, which is being challenged, the court might be unable to conclude proceedings in the application before the court’s vacation.
The judge then advised parties to approach a vacation judge, during the court’s vacation, to hear the application.
He said after then, the substantive case can be returned for trial before his court.
Justice Ekwo adjourned the matter until Oct. 5 for the commencement of trial.
The EFCC accused Bodejo of accepting 100,000 dollars from Sa’idu Abubakar a former Accountant-General (AG) of Bauchi State who is currently in the lawful custody of the Nigerian Police Force, among other cash in hard currency.
The EFCC said the sum exceeded the statutory cash transaction threshold of N5 million prescribed under Section 1(a) of the Money Laundering (Prohibition) Act, 2011 (as amended), without routing the said transaction through a financial institution as required by law.
He was said to have committed an offence contrary to Section 16(1)(d) of the Money Laundering (Prohibition) Act, 2011 (as amended) and punishable under Section 16(2)(b) of the same Act.
The offence is said to be contrary to Section 19(1)(d) of the Money Laundering (Prevention and Prohibition) Act, 2022 and punishable under Section 19(2)(b) of the same Act.