By Sule Adamu
The ongoing ₦80.2 billion fraud trial involving former Kogi State Governor, Yahaya Bello, took a controversial turn this week as the embattled politician requested permission from a Federal High Court to travel abroad on medical grounds — a move critics see as a calculated ploy to evade justice.
Bello, who faces 19 counts bordering on money laundering, breach of trust, and misappropriation of public funds, asked Justice Emeka Nwite of the Federal High Court in Abuja to grant him leave to travel overseas for what his legal team described as “urgent medical attention.”
According to his lawyer, the former governor has not traveled in the past eight years and now requires specialized treatment unavailable in Nigeria.
But observers are questioning both the timing and the motive behind this request.
The medical excuse is strikingly familiar in the playbook of Nigerian politicians facing corruption charges. From Diezani Alison-Madueke to Abdulrasheed Maina, the country has seen a pattern where indicted figures seek international medical trips — often returning only under extradition threats, or never at all.
Bello’s medical plea surfaces amid his refusal to appear in court since April 23, 2024.
Despite multiple orders by the court and attempts by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) to serve him, he remains evasive. The anti-graft agency even declared him wanted, alleging he was being shielded from arrest.
Many now view the medical travel request as another layer in what appears to be an orchestrated attempt to delay or derail the judicial process.
During Tuesday's court session, Bello’s lead counsel argued that his client had cooperated with investigators and deserved humane consideration.
The EFCC, represented by Senior Advocate of Nigeria Kemi Pinheiro, objected, citing the suspect’s blatant disregard for previous summonses and posing a potential flight risk.
Yet, rather than focusing on these central questions, much of the media coverage has descended into side attractions from witness testimonies about bank staff clusters to quarrels over procedural technicalities drawing attention away from the key issue: the alleged looting of ₦80.2 billion in public funds.
Unfortunately, some reports on the development have been criticized for adopting a tone that downplays the gravity of the situation.
In one widely circulated article, Bello’s appeal for medical travel is portrayed with undue empathy, with no probing into the specifics of his condition, nor any attempt to cross-reference similar judicial cases where medical pleas have been misused.
Questions remain unasked:
- What precisely is the nature of Bello’s ailment?
- Is there a verified medical report to support his claims?
- Can the treatment not be administered within Nigeria?
- If the court has yet to see Bello in person, how credible is any claim about his health status?
The EFCC’s handling of the case has also come under scrutiny. In earlier proceedings, the commission accused Bello’s legal team of harassing witnesses, only to later appear unprepared to substantiate that claim.
Such inconsistencies weaken public confidence in the prosecutorial process and feed into suspicions that high-profile corruption cases in Nigeria are rarely about justice, but theatre.
This trial is not just about Bello; it is a litmus test for Nigeria’s commitment to anti-corruption and rule of law.
Granting a travel request at this sensitive stage without strict guarantees or clear justification would send a dangerous message that powerful individuals can simply check out of justice when the pressure mounts.
If the court grants Yahaya Bello’s travel request, it must do so with stringent conditions and utmost transparency — or risk becoming complicit in a larger game of judicial manipulation.
The Nigerian public, already disillusioned with how justice is selectively served, deserves better from both the judiciary and the press.
This is not the time for soft reporting. It is the time for fearless journalism that interrogates power and holds the line for public accountability.
Editor’s Note: Stories like these should not just report events — they must challenge, question, and expose. When reporting on corruption, neutrality without context is negligence.
