Absence of Ex-Taraba Permanent Secretary Delays Former Governor’s Fraud Trial

The ongoing trial of former Taraba State Governor Darius Dickson Ishaku over an alleged ₦27 billion fraud has been stalled after a key prosecution witness, a former state permanent secretary, failed to appear in court, causing proceedings to be adjourned. The matter before the Federal Capital Territory High Court in Abuja has now been postponed as a result.

Ishaku, alongside Bello Yero — a former Permanent Secretary of the Bureau for Local Government and Chieftaincy Affairs — is facing a 15-count charge brought by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC). They are accused of criminal breach of trust, conspiracy and conversion of public funds, offences that relate to the alleged diversion of state funds amounting to about ₦27 billion during Ishaku’s tenure as governor.

At Monday’s sitting, the trial could not proceed because the permanent secretary, who was expected to give evidence for the prosecution, was absent without notice. The EFCC counsel informed the court that the trial was scheduled for continuation, but the key witness did not appear. The judge noted that although the former governor was granted leave to travel, the court’s order did not extend permission to remain outside the country indefinitely.

In response, Ishaku’s lawyer informed the court that his client had been granted permission to travel earlier in the year for routine medical care and that securing a visa had taken several weeks. The defence counsel argued that the former governor had complied with court orders and was not usually absent without reason.

With the permanent secretary’s absence halting progress, the presiding judge adjourned the case to a future date, which has yet to be rescheduled. The delay highlights the challenges the prosecution is facing in presenting its case, particularly when key witnesses are unavailable.

Ishaku and Yero have pleaded not guilty to all charges. Their defence has previously filed legal motions challenging aspects of the case, including the jurisdiction of the court, which have contributed to earlier adjournments.

Observers note that delays like this are common in high-profile corruption cases involving former public officials, especially where complex financial records and multiple participants are involved. The adjournment means the matter will return to court at a later date when all parties, including key witnesses, are present to continue the prosecution’s case.

The outcome of this trial remains closely watched, given its implications for accountability and anti-graft efforts involving public funds and high-ranking government officials