NDLEA Falters in Asset Declaration Case Against Abba Kyari as Cross-Examination Ends Amid Confusion

The National Drug Law Enforcement Agency (NDLEA) on Wednesday encountered a significant setback in its asset-declaration suit against Deputy Commissioner of Police (DCP) Abba Kyari at the Federal High Court in Abuja, after the cross-examination of the first respondent concluded with minimal progress and several tense courtroom moments.

The NDLEA, which instituted the case, alleges that Kyari failed to properly declare his assets. However, during cross-examination, the prosecution team led by counsel Sunday Joseph struggled to draw out inconsistencies in Kyari’s statements, particularly relating to inheritance and property ownership.

At the last sitting, Joseph attempted to get Kyari to admit that all properties left by his late father were solely his. Kyari refuted this, clarifying that the properties belonged to the entire family and would be shared among his 29 siblings whenever the family deemed fit.

Kyari also reaffirmed to the court that he had declared all his assets and bank accounts. He maintained that over 90% of the properties the NDLEA linked to him were falsely attributed. According to him, the legitimate owners of those properties had already come forward, submitted their documents to the court, and exposed the NDLEA’s media-trial narrative as fabricated.

He further told the court that all his bank statements had been presented, showing he had less than ₦4 million across all his accounts — accounts that have been blocked by the NDLEA for over three years. Kyari emphasized that not a single kobo in those accounts had ever been connected to criminal activity, despite NDLEA’s public claims.

> “My late father left over 20 houses for his children in Maiduguri. About four were sold to cater for his medical treatment,” Kyari said.

Attempts by the prosecution to drift into issues unrelated to the case were immediately shut down by Justice Omotosho, who cautioned the NDLEA counsel to remain focused.

> “I won’t allow that. This case has nothing to do with cocaine. This is strictly about alleged non-declaration of assets. You cannot come here and ask irrelevant questions,” the judge warned.
“If you waste your allotted time, I will end your case. Stick to what is before the court.”

Tension rose again when Joseph made what the court described as a “parable,” prompting an even sharper reprimand from the judge.

> “Be careful. Do not come here and impugn this holy temple. What do you mean by that? Are you trying to teach the court its job? It appears you are not ready,” Justice Omotosho said, visibly irritated.

At Wednesday’s resumed hearing, the prosecution presented a police document and repeatedly asked Kyari to refer to specific pages, resulting in confusion.

“Page 20?” Joseph asked.
Kyari replied that page 20 contained details of drug suspects arrested by the Police and the transfer of suspects and exhibits to the NDLEA. He explained that page 19 also contained similar information — none of which related to the asset-declaration charge.

Justice Omotosho eventually granted the prosecution more time to verify the document.

Kyari later explained that the document being relied upon was merely an interim police report, noting that a final and superior report existed that contradicted the three-year-old interim version.

He also highlighted several false claims the NDLEA had made against him, including alleging that he owned the Borno State Government polo ground — a property belonging to the state long before he was born. He reminded the court that the NDLEA had also presented false claims in the Federal High Court in Maiduguri, alleging he confessed to owning properties belonging to innocent Nigerians, who have since taken legal action against the NDLEA.

After the back-and-forth, the NDLEA counsel abruptly announced he had no further questions, surprising observers and the court. Defence counsel Chief Onyechi Ikpeazu (SAN) also indicated that he had no further cross-examination.

The case has now been adjourned for the filing and adoption of final written addresses, after which judgment will be delivered.