Beyond the noise, the proceedings raise uncomfortable questions about proof, process, and political judgment
In Nigeria, corruption allegations often travel faster than facts. Long before evidence is tested, reputations are tried and convicted in the court of public opinion. The ongoing trial of former Kogi State Governor, Alhaji Yahaya Bello is a classic illustration of this dangerous tendency.
As proceedings continue at the Federal Capital Territory High Court, a political reality is becoming increasingly difficult to ignore: the narrative outside the courtroom is running far ahead of the evidence inside it. Despite the parade of bank statements and witnesses, the prosecution has yet to demonstrate that Yahaya Bello personally operated the accounts cited or directly benefitted from the funds in question.
What the court record has instead revealed is a system of institutional governance, not personal control. The accounts under scrutiny are Government House accounts, managed by authorised civil servants, permanent secretaries, and professional accountants operating within established administrative structures. These are the same structures that critics often demand, yet now appear eager to dismiss.
More striking are the admissions made by the prosecution’s own witnesses. Under oath, bank officials repeatedly acknowledged that they did not know the purpose of many transactions, could not infer intent from account narrations, and could not trace how funds were ultimately used. In politics, such gaps are often ignored; in law, they are fatal.
Several of the transactions referenced were clearly labelled as security votes, police reform funding, and special government allocations. These were not abstract budget lines.
During Bello’s tenure, Kogi State faced intense security pressures that required decisive and well-funded responses. Even bank witnesses conceded that abbreviations like “sec” were not banking terms, meaning that claims of illegality are being constructed more by interpretation than evidence.
There is also a political irony worth noting. While critics frame the case as a story of individual control, testimony before the court confirms the opposite: multiple signatories, layered approvals, and bureaucratic oversight.
Some witnesses further admitted they were not account officers, did not open the accounts, and had no personal knowledge of the signatories or beneficiaries.
Beyond the specifics of the trial lies a broader political question: Are we fighting corruption, or are we weaponising allegations? Anti-corruption campaigns lose credibility when accusation is treated as conviction and due process is seen as an inconvenience rather than a safeguard.
Yahaya Bello’s decision to submit himself to the judicial process, rather than wage his defence through media outrage or political mobilisation, is itself a political statement, one rooted in confidence in institutions rather than fear of scrutiny.
This is not an argument against accountability. On the contrary, accountability demands rigour. If the evidence exists, it must be proven in court, not implied in headlines. Democracy is weakened when justice becomes performative.
As the trial continues, Nigerians should pay closer attention to the courtroom than to the commentary. Because in the end, politics may shape perception, but only evidence secures conviction.
– Comrade Danfulani Lukman Ohinoyi writes from Okene.
