The Economic and Financial Crimes Commission’s (EFCC) 14th witness in the alleged money laundering trial of former Kogi State Governor, Yahaya Bello, on Tuesday told the Federal Capital Territory High Court that no court order authorised the refund of Bello’s children’s school fees to the anti-graft agency by the American International School, Abuja (AISA).

The witness, Nicholas Ojehomon, an Internal Auditor with AISA, made the disclosure while being cross-examined by defence counsel, Joseph Daudu, SAN.

Reading from a Certified True Copy (CTC) of the judgment in suit No. FCT/HC/CV/2574/2023 filed by Ali Bello against AISA, the witness confirmed that the court held that the school acted wrongly by refunding the disputed fees to the EFCC without a valid court order or due process.

According to the judgment read in court, AISA could not lawfully and unilaterally refund the sum of $760,910.84 paid under the prepaid school fees agreement to the EFCC or any third party except in line with the agreement or pursuant to a court order.

The judgment further restrained the school, its staff and agents from paying the money to the EFCC or any other party without due process or an order of a competent court.

When asked by defence counsel whether the judgment meant the school was wrong to refund the money to the EFCC without a court order, the witness responded in the affirmative.

“The third relief you read says you were wrong in refunding money to the EFCC,” Daudu said.
“Yes,” the witness replied.

Ojehomon also confirmed, after being shown the prepaid school fees agreement marked Exhibit AX4, that Bello was not a signatory to the document and that no payment originated directly from the former governor.

The witness told the court he had worked as AISA’s Internal Auditor for about eight to nine years.
Earlier, the court admitted the Certified True Copy of the judgment in the suit between Ali Bello and AISA as Exhibit AO.

Justice Maryann Anenih subsequently adjourned the matter to May 8, 2026, for continuation of trial after reserving ruling on an application challenging the court’s jurisdiction.