An investigator with the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC), Ilorin Zonal Directorate, Mr. Stanley Ujilibo, on Tuesday told the Kwara State High Court sitting in Ilorin that no part of the controversial N5.78 billion State Universal Basic Education Board (SUBEB) fund was directly released to former Governor Abdulfatah Ahmed.

Ujilibo disclosed during the ongoing trial of Ahmed and his former Commissioner for Finance, Alhaji Demola Banu, who are facing charges over the alleged diversion of N5.78 billion belonging to the Kwara State SUBEB.

The EFCC investigator, who testified as the sixth prosecution witness (PW6), further stated that neither the former governor nor the Universal Basic Education Commission (UBEC) were signatories to the Kwara SUBEB account.

Under cross-examination by counsel to the first defendant, Mr. Abdulrazaq Gold (SAN), Ujilibo maintained that no evidence showed that the alleged diverted funds were paid into Ahmed’s personal account.

He, however, disclosed that the former governor approved a request for a N1 billion loan from the state’s SUBEB counterpart fund to facilitate the payment of workers’ salaries.

According to him, the approval followed a request by the second defendant, Banu, who was then Commissioner for Finance. He noted that using the SUBEB fund for salary payments was contrary to the purpose for which the funds were meant.

Ujilibo also told the court that the EFCC did not investigate Ahmed’s personal bank accounts because the petition before the commission did not link the allegedly diverted funds to any of his accounts.

The witness further revealed that none of the accounting officers of the Kwara State Universal Basic Education Board is standing trial in the matter, describing them as witnesses in the case.

During the proceedings, counsel to the first defendant applied for an adjournment to enable him to obtain a statement allegedly made by Ahmed to the EFCC in Abuja, as well as his asset declaration forms, for further cross-examining the witness.

The application was opposed by EFCC counsel, Mr Adebisi Adeniyi, who argued that the defence had sufficient time to request the documents since the commencement of the trial in 2024.

“My Lord, we are constrained to oppose this application. The last time this matter came up before your Lordship was on February 16. The defendant has had ample time to obtain any document required for cross-examination,” Adeniyi submitted.

Ruling on the application, Justice Mahmud Abdulgafar declined the request for adjournment but held that the defence was at liberty to recall the witness for further cross-examination if necessary.

The case was subsequently adjourned until July 27 for continuation of the trial.