By Demola Akinyemi, Ilorin
An Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) investigator, Stanley Ujilibo, has told an Ilorin High Court that former Kwara State Governor, Alhaji Abdulfatah Ahmed, did not directly receive any part of the alleged N5.78 billion State Universal Basic Education Board (SUBEB) funds under investigation.
Ujilibo, who testified on Wednesday as the sixth prosecution witness (PW6), made the disclosure during cross-examination in the ongoing trial of the former governor and his former Commissioner for Finance and Economic Planning, Alhaji Demola Nurudeen Banu.
The defendants are standing trial over alleged diversion of SUBEB funds.
The EFCC investigator stated that neither the former governor nor the Universal Basic Education Commission (UBEC) were signatories to the Kwara SUBEB account.
He, however, told the court that the former governor approved a request for a N1 billion loan drawn from the state’s SUBEB counterpart fund, which was reportedly used for payment of workers’ salaries.
According to him, the request for the loan was made by the second defendant, then Commissioner for Finance, and was not consistent with the original purpose of the SUBEB fund.
Ujilibo also said the EFCC did not investigate the former governor’s personal accounts because the petition received by the commission did not link him directly to the movement of the funds.
He further disclosed that none of the accounting officers of the Kwara State Universal Basic Education Board are standing trial, noting that they are appearing as witnesses in the case.
During proceedings, counsel to the first defendant, Senior Advocate of Nigeria AbdullRazaq Gold, applied for an adjournment to enable him obtain the defendant’s statements to the EFCC and his asset declaration forms for use in cross-examination.
The application was opposed by EFCC counsel, Adebisi Adeniyi, who argued that the defence had sufficient time since 2024 to request the documents.
Delivering ruling on the application, Justice Mahmud Abdulgafar of the Kwara State High Court refused the request but held that the defence counsel was at liberty to recall the witness for further cross-examination.
The cross-examination continued briefly before the matter was adjourned to July 27 for continuation of trial.
