Alleged N27b Fraud: Ex-Taraba Governor Darius Ishaku, advised me to run away because of EFCC – Witness

Ishaku

By JUMOKE SANNI

The First Prosecution Witness, PW1, Ismail Lawal in the trial of the former governor of Taraba State, Darius Dickson Ishaku on Wednesday, July 2, 2025, informed Justice S.C. Oriji of the Federal Capital Territory High Court, Maitama, Abuja, that Ishaku advised him to run away for a period of six months, so as not to report to the EFCC that needed him for its investigations concerning the former governor.

Ishaku, the first defendant, is facing prosecution by the EFCC alongside a former permanent secretary, Bureau for Local government and Chieftaincy Affairs, Bello Yero, on a 15-count charge, bordering on criminal breach of trust, conspiracy and conversion of public fund to the tune of N27,000,000,000.00 (Twenty -seven Billion Naira).

Speaking under cross-examination by the first defendant’s counsel, P. H. Ogbole, SAN, the witness disclosed that as the EFCC was closing in on him in furtherance of its investigation of the first defendant, he was then advised by the first defendant to run away for six months adding that the Commission arrested him while he was he was planning to submit himself to it.

“I was invited to come to the EFCC and was planning to go before His Excellency asked me to stay out. When he asked me to go, I asked how long and he said six months, but people have gone ahead of me and have given statements against me that they gave me money, so if the EFCC asked me to come and I did not come at that time, meaning they may be suspecting that I took the money,” he said.

He further stated that he was detained by the EFCC for 40 days because he couldn’t meet up with the conditions of the administrative bail. “I was in EFCC detention for 40 days because I couldn’t meet the bail conditions. I was given bail conditions on the second or third day. I also made statements before I was asked to bring sureties”, he said.

The witness also stated that he was in no position to ascertain if the assignments he undertook for the first defendant were legitimate or not, adding that he wouldn’t have carried them out if he knew they were illegitimate.